U.S. v. Farmers Co-op. Co., 82-1439
| Citation | 708 F.2d 352 |
| Decision Date | 10 June 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-1439,82-1439 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. FARMERS COOPERATIVE COMPANY, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
John R. Mackaman, Barbara G. Barrett of Dickinson, Throckmorton, Parker, Mannheimer & Raife, Des Moines, Iowa, Thomas E. Mullin, Donald D. Mullin, Creston, Iowa, for appellant, Farmers Co-op. Co.
Richard C. Turner, U.S. Atty., Robert C. Dopf, Asst. U.S. Atty., Des Moines, Iowa, Donald R. Kronenberger, Jr., Deputy Regional Atty., U.S. Dept. of Agr., Kansas City, Mo., for appellee United States.
Before ROSS, Circuit Judge, HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge.
Farmers Cooperative Company appeals from the grant of summary judgment by the District Court 1 for the Southern District of Iowa. We affirm.
In exchange for loans received from the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA), David and Marilyn Libby executed promissory notes and security agreements giving the FmHA a security interest in all crops and farm products then owned or thereafter acquired by the Libbys. Financing statements covering the crops and farm products were filed with the Secretary of State of Iowa.
The Libbys subsequently defaulted on the loans. From November 1, 1979, through March 1, 1980, appellant purchased soybeans from the Libbys. There is no dispute that the soybeans were part of the collateral securing the Libbys' promissory notes to the FmHA. By letter of November 25, 1980, the FmHA demanded the proceeds of the sales from appellant. Appellant did not respond to the letter or otherwise comply with the demand for payment.
Thereafter the United States, on behalf of the FmHA, filed an action for conversion. In defense appellant alleged that FmHA had waived its security interest and was therefore estopped from asserting the interest against appellant. The district court granted the government's motion for summary judgment because appellant did not meet "its burden of generating a fact issue on ... its affirmative defense of waiver and estoppel." See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e) ().
After having reviewed the record and the briefs and listening to oral argument, we affirm on the basis of the district court's opinion. 2 See 8th Cir.R. 14.
1 The Honorable Harold D. Vietor, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.
2...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Walter Dunlap & Sons, Inc.
...Transactions p 8.4[d] (1980). Cf. United States v. Missouri Farmers Ass'n., Inc., 764 F.2d 488 (8th Cir.1985); United States v. Farmers Co-Op Co., 708 F.2d 352 (8th Cir.1983). Relying on Kimbell, defendants here cite Sec. 9-306 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which states that "a security i......
-
U.S. v. Wilson
...its financial interest. 7 C.F.R. Sec. 1962.17 governs the release of the government's security interest, United States v. Farmers Cooperative Co., 708 F.2d 352, 353 n. 2 (8th Cir.1983), and there is no evidence to suggest any such release in this instance. See United States v. Gallatin Live......
-
City of Warrensburg, Mo. v. RCA Corp., 80-0993-CV-W-1.
...for trial. If he does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him. See United States v. Farmers Cooperative Co., 708 F.2d 352 (8th Cir.1983), for a case affirming summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56(e) because appellant did not meet "its burden of generat......
-
U.S. v. Landmark Park & Associates
...of state law regarding acts effecting release of a Farmers Home Administration crop lien). See also United States v. Farmers Cooperative Co., 708 F.2d 352, 353 n. 2 (8th Cir.1983) (rejecting application of state law concerning waiver of a Farmers Home Administration security interest in cro......