Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01057/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01057-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 

---

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

FILED 

Ucited States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

/J, R 2 19"0 

TESORO FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., } 

~OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

7 JACKSON 

and 

RONALD F. 

} 

Plaintiff-Appellee, } 

} 

} 

} 

BUILDING PARTNERSHIP, } 

} 

Defendant, } 

} 

} 

} 

WEISZMANN, } 

} 

Defendant-Appellant. } 

} 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 89-1057 

(D.C. No. 88-Z-549} 

( D. Colo. ) 

Before LOGAN, JONES,** and SEYMOUR, Circuit Judges. 

**Honorable Nathaniel R. Jones, Circuit Judge, United States Court 

of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-1057 Document: 01019967087 Date Filed: 04/26/1990 Page: 1 
assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

In this removed action Ronald F. Weiszmann has appealed 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(2) from an order of the district 

court which adopted a state court order appointing a receiver. We 

need not consider the merits of Weiszmann's first argument 

regarding the necessity of obtaining relief from stay in the 

bankruptcy of President's Mortgage Industrial Bank, because this 

argument is completely contrary to the position asserted by 

Weiszmann in his removal petition, i.e., that Weiszmann had 

acquired all interest in the 7 Jackson Building Partnership in 

1985. See 18 C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice 

and Procedure§ 4477 at 786 (1981). Similarly, Weiszmann's second 

argument that plaintiff is no longer the real party in interest 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(a) because the Federal Savings & Loan 

Insurance Corp. (FSLIC) was appointed as a receiver after this 

action was commenced is meritless because such a transfer of 

interest after a suit is brought is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 

25(c), which does not require that anything be done. See 7C C. 

Wright, A. Miller & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure§ 1958 

(1986). 

On appeal, plaintiff has sought sanctions pursuant to 

Fed. R. App. P. 38. We have considered plaintiff's arguments and 

conclude that sanctions are not warranted. 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-1057 Document: 01019967087 Date Filed: 04/26/1990 Page: 2 
Accordingly, the order of the district court adopting the 

state court order appointing a receiver is AFFIRMED, and 

plaintiff's request for sanctions is DENIED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-1057 Document: 01019967087 Date Filed: 04/26/1990 Page: 3