Justia U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment quieting title to an interest in the Bakken formation that Phillip Armstrong purchased from Berco. Armstrong also filed suit against Encore for breaching a Letter Offer and for trespassing on, and converting the oil and gas attributable to, Armstrong's interest. Berco counterclaimed. The court affirmed the dismissal of Armstrong's quiet-title claim, based on the district court's conclusion that the Purchase Agreement and Assignment, taken together, conveyed to Armstrong a wellbore-only assignment; Armstrong's trespass claim was properly dismissed because Armstrong did not assert that Encore interfered with his use of the two wellbores; Armstrong's conversion claim was properly dismissed because Armstrong has an interest in only the Thompson and Yttredahl wellbores, the equipment associated with those wellbores, and the production through those two wellbores; the breach of contract claim was properly dismissed because Armstrong had no leasehold interest to transfer and thus could not comply with the Letter Offer; and the district court correctly ruled that Armstrong's unilateral alteration of Exhibit A before recording it rendered the recorded Assignment null and void. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Armstrong, et al. v. Berco Resources, LLC, et al." on Justia Law

The Government filed civil forfeiture actions against five properties alleging that they were used to manufacture illegal drugs or were purchased with proceeds from illegal drug sales. Claimants filed claims to the defendant properties. The district court necessarily had to construe both Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions G(4)(b)(i)-(ii) (the direct notice requirements) and Supplemental Rule G4(b)(v) (the actual notice exception) in order to determine what proper notice was required in this case. Therefore, the court reviewed de novo the district court's decision to strike the claims where that decision rested on an interpretation of the civil forfeiture notice provisions. The court concluded that claimants' verified claim was not untimely where the government did not comply with the notice regime laid out in Supplemental Rule G. The court also concluded that to impute actual notice on the basis of a communication to the government by an attorney (an email) who at the time did not represent them would work a serious injustice and raise troubling constitutional concerns. Accordingly, the court vacated the forfeiture judgments, reversed the district court's order striking two of claimants' claims as untimely, and remanded for a merits determination on the claims to the properties. View "United States v. Buczkowski, et al." on Justia Law

Farm Credit had a security interest in corn delivered to Cargill and filed suit against Cargill in replevin for the corn. The district court concluded that Farm Credit's security interest under the Food Security Act (FSA) of 1985, 7 U.S.C. 1631(e), entitled it to proceeds from the corn delivered to Cargill. The court concluded that Cargill did not dispute that Farm Credit complied with the FSA. To the extent that the U.C.C. governs priority disputes as a foundation for the FSA, Cargill's argument failed because U.C.C. 9-404 does not apply in this case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Farm Credit. View "Farm Credit Serv. v. Cargill, Inc." on Justia Law

After debtors filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection, GMAC filed this adversary proceeding claiming that it was entitled to a first-priority lien on a home and surrounding twenty-two acres of land by operation of the Arkansas doctrine of equitable subrogation, or to reformation correcting the mutual mistake in its mortgage. The court concluded that, at the time Summit and Southern State made their new loans, knowledge that GMAC made a mistake by describing the wrong property on its earlier mortgage was not knowledge that GMAC had or even claimed to have a superior unrecorded interest, because GMAC had for many months made no attempt to correct the known error, or to reform its mortgage; the principle of Killam v. Tex. Oil & Gas Corp. did not apply to mortgage priority disputes; and the blame for the uncertainty regarding GMAC's lien position lies with GMAC. Had GMAC taken timely action, it would have held the senior recorded lien. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of relief for GMAC. View "Owcen Loan Servicing, LLC v. Summit Bank, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against Wells Fargo and Freddie Mac, asserting several deficiencies with the foreclosure of his home and seeking to quiet title to the property in himself. The district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court found that Wells Fargo was holder of the note and, thus, was entitled to appoint a successor trustee to the deed of trust; the court rejected plaintiff's argument that Missouri law required Wells Fargo to produce the original note at the time of the foreclosure proceeding; and plaintiff failed to provide clear and satisfactory evidence that the foreclosure sale was conducted improperly, more particularly that the statutory notice requirements were not met. Having determined that plaintiff's wrongful foreclosure action failed, plaintiff cannot show that he has superior title to the property, and therefore, could not succeed on his quiet title action. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment. View "Lackey, Jr. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against the Bank seeking to void a mortgage foreclosure sale of their home. Plaintiffs alleged that the Bank represented orally that it would postpone the foreclosure sale, but then proceeded to foreclose anyway. The court concluded that plaintiffs' claim of negligent misrepresentation was barred by the Minnesota Credit Agreement Status, Minn. Stat. 513.33, where any party asserting the existence of a credit agreement must comply with the writing and signature requirements of section 513.33. The court concluded that the complaint alleged a claim of promissory estoppel, rather than equitable estoppel, and was barred by the Minnesota Credit Agreement Statute. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of the Bank's motion to dismiss. View "Bracewell, et al. v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Assoc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against the cities, alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act (FHA), 42 U.S.C. 3601 et seq., federal civil rights laws, and state laws stemming from the cities' demolition of his properties after declaring them nuisances. On remand, the district court concluded that plaintiff failed to state a claim under federal law and that the statute of limitations barred his FHA claims. The court concluded that the district court did not err by ordering the parties to brief the issue of whether plaintiff's complaints stated a claim under federal law; the district court properly considered the relevant evidence and did not err by excluding evidence plaintiff submitted; the district court did not err in concluding that the two-year statute of limitations barred plaintiff's FHA claims; the district court did not err in concluding that plaintiff's complaint, alleging 42 U.S.C. 1981-83 claims, failed to state a claim under federal law; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motions to alter or amend. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Smithrud v. City of St. Paul, et al." on Justia Law

The Smiths appealed from the district court's order condemning portions of their property for the construction of a natural gas pipeline owned and operated by Alliance and granting Alliance immediate use and possession of the condemned land. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the Smiths' statutory challenges based on 18 C.F.R. 157.6(d) and North Dakota Administrative Code (NDAC) 69-06-08-01. The court also concluded that the Smiths received reasonable notice that Alliance was applying to FERC for the right to condemn their land; the court rejected the Smiths' allegation that Alliance violated several state procedural rules in bringing the condemnation action because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 71.1 preempted all of these state procedures; Alliance satisfied any duty to negotiate with the Smiths in good faith pursuant to the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. 717f(h); and the district court did not abuse its discretion in holding that Alliance was entitled to immediate use and possession pursuant to Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C L Sys., Inc. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Alliance Pipeline L.P. v. 4.360 Acres of Land, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against Countrywide, alleging violation of the Missouri Second Mortgage Loan Act (MSMLA), 516.231 to 408.241 RSMo. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the district court's dismissal of their claims as barred by the three-year statute of limitations of section 516.130(2). The court concluded that the MSMLA was subject to the three-year limitations period of section 516.130(2), not the six-year statute of limitations under section 516.420, pursuant to Rashaw v. United Consumers Credit Union. The court also concluded, under Missouri law, that the "entire damage" to plaintiffs was capable of ascertainment "in a single action" and the "continuing or repeated wrong" exception did not apply in this case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Washington, et al. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc." on Justia Law

Claimant sought the return of $154,853.00 in U.S. currency seized during a traffic stop. On appeal, claimant challenged the district court's grant of the government's motion to strike his verified claim and amended verified claim, its order forfeiting the currency, and its denial of his motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in striking claimant's verified complaint where his blanket assertions did not sufficiently identify his interest in the currency; the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that claimant failed to meet the requirements of Supplemental Rule G(5) as it pertained to $150.353.00 in which claimant claimed a possessory interest as bailee; the district court abused its discretion in striking claimant's amended verified claim as to the remaining $4,500 for failure to adequately respond to the special interrogatories when no special interrogatories were necessary to determine standing; and, on remand, the district court can address claimant's constitutional claims when it considers his motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Marcus" on Justia Law