U.S. v. Mansion House Center North Redevelopment Co., 88-1302
| Decision Date | 19 August 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-1302,88-1302 |
| Citation | 855 F.2d 524 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. MANSION HOUSE CENTER NORTH REDEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a limited partnership; Mansion House Center Redevelopment Company, a limited partnership; Mansion House Center South Redevelopment Company, a limited partnership; Mansion House Center North Redevelopment Corporation, a corporation and Francis E. Darcy, General Partners of Mansion House Center North Redevelopment Company; Mansion House Center South Redevelopment Corporation, a corporation and Francis E. Darcy, General Partners of Mansion House Center South Redevelopment Company; Mansion House Motor Motel Company, a limited partnership; Appellants, Ocean Sea Breeze, Inc., a corporation, and Francis E. Darcy, General Partners of Mansion House Motor Motel Company; Mansion House Motor Motel Corporation, a corporation; Pierre V. Heftler; E.J. Ehrlich; Hart Perry; Norman S. Altman; Mansion house Center North Tower Redevelopment Corporation; Mansion House Center Tower Redevelopment Corporation; Mansion House Center South Tower Redevelopment Corporation. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. MANSION HOUSE CENTER REDEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a limited partnership; Appellant, and MH Center Tower Redevelopment Corporation, a corporation; and Norman S. Altman; E.J. Ehrlich; Pierre V. Heftler and Hart Perry, General Partners of Mansion House Center Redevelopment Company, a limited partnership; and Mansion House Center Redevelopment Corporation, a corporation, and Francis E. Darcy, General Partners of Mansion House Center Redevelopment Company, a limited partnership, Appellants. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. MANSION HOUSE CENTER NORTH REDEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a limited partnership, Appellant, MH Center North Tower Redevelopment Corporation, a corporation, and Norman S. Altman; E.J. Ehrlich; Pierre V. Heftler; Hart Perry, General Partners of Mansion House Center North Redevelopment Co., a limited partnership; Mansion House Center North Redevelopment Corporation, a corporation; and Francis E. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Lloyd A. Palans, David W. Harlan, and Cawood K. Bebout, St. Louis, Mo., for appellants.
Joseph B. Moore, Asst. U.S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., J. Christopher Kohn and James G. Bruen, Jr., Washington, D.C., for appellee.
Before ARNOLD, Circuit Judge, ROSS, Senior Circuit Judge, and WOLLE, District Judge. *
Appellants in these consolidated foreclosure actions contest the district court's 1 modification and clarification of its December 2, 1985 judgment, after that judgment was affirmed by this court. Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.
The United States, appellee, filed these three foreclosure actions against the appellants, the owners of the Mansion House Center towers (Owner-Partnerships), in May of 1979 after the Owner-Partnerships defaulted on their mortgage payments to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 2
Each suit involved a Deed of Trust Note and a Deed of Trust executed in 1964, and a Security Agreement executed in 1967. Each Deed of Trust Note was secured by the corresponding Deed of Trust and later by the corresponding Security Agreement. Each Deed of Trust mortgaged the respective defendants' leasehold interests in the land underlying what are now known as the Mansion House Center towers, together with the entirety of the respective defendants' interests in the towers to be constructed on the land and interests in the fixtures to be installed in those towers. That is, by the Deeds of Trust, defendants mortgaged (in addition to their leasehold interests in the land) both their leasehold interests in the towers and fixtures and their fee interests, if any, in the towers and fixtures. Each Security Agreement pledged as security certain personal property located in or attached to or belonging to the tower which was later constructed on the land involved in the corresponding Deed of Trust and Deed of Trust Note.
United States v. Mansion House Center Redevelopment Co., 118 F.R.D. 487, 491-92 (1987) (footnotes omitted). In each of these actions the government sought, inter alia, an order of foreclosure on the respective deeds of trust and security agreements, and sale of the subject property, in order to satisfy the indebtedness on the deed of trust notes and certain money judgments against the appellants.
Eventually, on August 12, 1985, after years of litigation and numerous appeals to this court, these foreclosure actions were tried to the district court sitting without a jury. At that time the parties stipulated that the United States was entitled to a separate judgment in each of the foreclosure actions, unless theOwner-Partnerships prevailed on their sole defense that HUD was obligated to settle the cases pursuant to the parties' August 18, 1982 settlement agreement, as amended. On December 2, 1985, the district court rejected the defense asserted by the Owner-Partnerships, entered judgment in favor of the United States in each of the foreclosure actions, and ordered that all Mansion House Center realty described in the respective deeds of trust be sold for cash to the highest bidder. Several days later the district court stayed its order of foreclosure pending the Owner-Partnerships' appeal to this court. On July 17, 1986, we affirmed the district court's judgment in full. United States v. Mansion House Center Redevelopment Co., 796 F.2d 1039 (8th Cir.1986).
Thereafter, on January 16, 1987, the United States filed a motion for supplemental order in the district...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nicholson v. Biomet, Inc.
...as to reflect what was understood, intended and agreed upon by the parties and the court." United States v. Mansion House Ctr. N. Redevelopment Co. , 855 F.2d 524, 527 (8th Cir. 1988) (per curiam). Plaintiff's motion appears proper under both Rule 59(e) and 60 because it is not introducing ......
-
Harris News Agency, Inc. v. Bowers
...parties and the court.'" Kocher v. Dow Chem. Co., 132 F.3d 1225, 1229 (8th Cir. 1997) (quoting United States v. Mansion House Ctr. N. Redev. Co., 855 F.2d 524, 527 (8th Cir. 1988) (per curiam)). Rule 60(a) "permits only a correction for the purpose of reflecting accurately a decision that t......
-
Nicholson v. Biomet, Inc.
...was understood, intended and agreed upon by the parties and the court."Page 47 United States v. Mansion House Ctr. N. Redevelopment Co., 855 F.2d 524, 527 (8th Cir. 1988) (per curiam). Plaintiff's motion appears proper under both Rule 59(e) and 60 because it is not introducing new evidence ......
-
Century Bank v. Hymans
...the terms of a judgment. See Stovall v. Illinois Cent. Gulf R.R., 722 F.2d 190, 191 (5th Cir.1984); United States v. Mansion House Ctr. N. Redevelopment Co., 855 F.2d 524, 527 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 993, 109 S.Ct. 557, 102 L.Ed.2d 583 (1988); Robi v. Five Platters, 918 F.2d 1439......