US v. Carolina Eastern Chemical Co., Inc.

• Decision Date: 23 July 1986
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 85-1344-15.
• Citation: 639 F. Supp. 1420
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. CAROLINA EASTERN CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC., Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina

639 F. Supp. 1420

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. CAROLINA EASTERN CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC., Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 85-1344-15.

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division.

July 23, 1986.

Glen E. Craig, Asst. U.S. Atty., Columbia, S.C., for plaintiff.

Willis Fuller, Jr., Charleston, S.C., for defendant.

ORDER

HAMILTON, District Judge.

This declaratory judgment action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 seeks to determine whether the government or the defendant is entitled to certain funds, amounting to Thirty-seven Thousand Ninety-nine and 80/100 Dollars ($37,099.80) currently held in a certificate of deposit in the South Carolina National Bank. Trial of this case occurred on April 23, 1986. On May 8, 1986 this court issued an order in the case, finding that the defendant Carolina Eastern Chemical Company, Inc. was entitled to all the funds at issue. The matter is presently before the court upon the government's motion, filed May 16, 1986, for reconsideration of the judgment, pursuant to Rule 52(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., and/or motion to alter or amend a judgment, pursuant to Rule 59(e), Fed.R.Civ.P.

The facts and circumstances from which this litigation arose were stipulated before trial by the parties and are amply set forth in the court's May 8 order. Accordingly, they will not be repeated herein, particularly because they are not relevant to the legal issues currently before the court. In contrast, however, the procedural history of this litigation commands significant mention, and is detailed below.

In essence, this case presents the question whether certain Payment-in-Kind (PIK) payments received by a farmer McCutchen for his agreement to forego planting crops may be claimed by the government after the farmer has defaulted under several Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) loans. Prior to the April 23 trial the parties submitted proposed orders, containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The government's proposed order, and trial brief, treated, almost exclusively, the question whether the PIK payments were "proceeds" of crop collateral, so as to entitle the government to these funds under several security agreements between McCutchen and the FmHA. Indeed, only scant footnote mention was made in the government's proposed order of a second theory, involving certain real estate mortgages executed by McCutchen in favor of the government, under which the government might claim the PIK payments as rents and profits of the land. During the short, two-hour trial of this case the government pursued, and argued solely the theory that the PIK payments should be treated as "proceeds" of crop collateral. The government presented no evidence pertaining to the mortgage theory, other than the mortgages themselves. In fact no mention of the mortgage theory would probably have been made at all at trial if this court had not sua sponte inquired if any foreclosure proceedings had been instituted by the government. The government responded that no foreclosure proceedings had been commenced.

After carefully reviewing the exhibits and briefs, considering counsel's arguments and studying the law, the court concluded that the government was not entitled to the funds, and issued the May 8 order. Most of this order dealt with the relatively novel question presented under the "proceeds" theory. However, for purposes of comprehensiveness the May 8 order also addressed, in approximately one and-a-half pages, the "mortgage" theory, even though that theory had not been pressed by counsel for the government at trial. Indeed the court had serious doubts whether the government was seriously pursuing this secondary theory.

Eight days after judgment had been entered for the defendant, the government, obviously discontented with the initial decision, filed its motion for reconsideration and/or amendment of the judgment. The government's motion does not challenge the court's ruling with respect to the "proceeds" theory. Instead, the government urges the court to consider substantial evidence that it had not brought before the court at trial pertaining to the "mortgage" theory, and to alter/amend the original judgment.¹ The government draws the court's attention to Paragraph 17 of mortgages which provides:

SHOULD DEFAULT occur in the performance or discharge of any obligation in this instrument or secured by this instrument, ..., the Government at its option, with or without notice, may: ... (b) ... take possession of, operate or rent the property ...

The government argues that because the McCutchens were in default from 1983, and the government had the right under paragraph 17 to take possession of the land, the government may now claim the "rents and profits" of the land earned since 1983, notwithstanding the fact that the government never instituted foreclosure proceedings or occupied the land.² In support of its position, the government now brings before the court evidence that a nationwide injunction, see Coleman v. Block, 580 F.Supp. 194 (D.N.D.1984) had precluded the government from earlier commencing foreclosure proceedings. Additional attachments to the government's motion for reconsideration include: (1) the "Kane Memorandum," a memorandum prepared by a United States Department of Agriculture attorney concerning the Coleman injunctions; (2) An affidavit of Ike Gibbons, County Supervisor, South Carolina Farmers Homes Administration; (3) A May 16, 1986 Notice of Acceleration of Debt; (4) An April 24, 1984 Pretermination Notice; (5) A letter (and accompanying material) from the FmHA to Mr. McCutchen, dated February 21, 1986; and lastly, and exhaustively; (6) A notification to the court that on July 15, 1986 the government had instituted foreclosure proceedings.

The defendant, Carolina Eastern Chemical Company, Inc., filed a Memorandum In Opposition to the government's motion. Defendant's memorandum does not address the merits of the court's prior ruling on the "mortgage theory," does not include additional evidence relating to such theory, and does not respond to the government's newly raised arguments and evidence. Rather, defendant simply objects that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure confer no license on the government "to retry its case upon a different theory and upon different evidence merely because it is displeased with the outcome of the first trial." Defendant's Memorandum In Opposition, at 2.

In essence then the government's motion raises two distinct considerations. The threshold question is whether, and to what extent, if any, the court may consider the government's newly submitted evidence when there has not been the slightest contention that this evidence was unavailable at the trial. Only if an affirmative response is indicated for this threshold matter must the court consider the second question involving the merits of its prior ruling on the "mortgage theory."

I. RULE 52(b), AMENDMENT OF FINDINGS BY THE COURT, AND RULE 59(e), NEW TRIALS: ALTERATION OR AMENDMENT OF JUDGMENT

Rule 52(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. provides in part that:

Upon motion of a party made not later than 10 days after entry of judgment the court may amend its findings or make additional findings and may amend the judgment accordingly. The motion may be made with a motion for a new trial pursuant to Rule 59....

The primary purpose of Rule 52(b) is to enable the appellate court to obtain a correct understanding of the factual issues determined by the trial court as a basis for the conclusions of law and judgment entered thereon. Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2582 at 722 (1971). A party who failed to prove his strongest case is not entitled to a second opportunity by moving to amend a finding of fact and a conclusion of law. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co. v. Midwestern Instruments, Inc., 188 F.Supp. 248, (N.D.Ill.1960), aff'd, 298 F.2d 36 (7th Cir.1961); Davis v. Mathews, 450 F.Supp. 308, 318 (E.D.Cal.1978). Cf. Caracci v. Brother International Sewing Machine Corp., 222 F.Supp. 769 (E.D.La.1963), aff'd, 341 F.2d 377 (5th Cir.1965) (Rule 52(b) motions are more favored when made before any indication is given by the court as to the decision). Thus, a Rule 52(b) motion is intended to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. Evans, Inc. v. Tiffany & Co., 416 F.Supp. 224 (N.D.Ill.1976).

Rule 52 allows such a motion to be coupled with a motion for a new trial under Rule 59. The circumstances under which new trials may be granted in bench trials are referenced in Rule 59(a)(2) which provides in part:

A new trial may be granted to all or any of the parties and on all or part of the issues ... (2) in an action tried without a jury, for any of the reasons for which rehearings have heretofore been granted in suits in equity in the courts of the United States. On a motion for a new trial in an action tried without a jury, the court may open the judgment if one has been entered, take additional testimony, amend findings of fact and conclusions of law or make new findings and conclusions, and direct the entry of a new judgment.

Rule 59(a)(2) has been interpreted as allowing a new trial to be granted in a nonjury action only if a new trial might be obtained under similar circumstances in a jury action under subdivision (a)(1). United States v. 5.77 Acres of Land, 3 F.R.D. 298 (E.D.N.Y.1944). Those generally recognized grounds for a new trial include: that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, that the damages are excessive, or that for numerous other reasons the trial was not fair. Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Duncan, 311 U.S. 243, 61 S.Ct. 189, 85 L.Ed. 147 (1940). A motion for a new trial in a nonjury case or a petition for a rehearing should be based upon manifest error of law or mistake of fact, and a judgment should not be set aside except for substantial reasons. Hager v. Paul Revere Life Insurance Co., 489 F.Supp. 317, 321 (E.D...