Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02453/USCOURTS-ca8-05-02453-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

The Honorable Dean Whipple, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Western District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-2453

___________

Ralph E. McCarthy, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Beal Bank, SSB; Missouri Capital *

Mortgage; John Vacey, doing business *

as Missouri Capital Mortgage; * [UNPUBLISHED]

Springfield Title Company; Trustee *

Does, 1 to 10, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: August 4, 2006

Filed: August 11, 2006 

___________

Before RILEY, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Ralph McCarthy appeals from the district court’s1

 adverse judgment on his

claims arising out of the foreclosure of real property he used to secure a defaulted

bank loan. Upon careful review of the issues raised on appeal, we affirm. 

Appellate Case: 05-2453 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/11/2006 Entry ID: 2077376
-2-

First, we hold that the district court did not err in instructing the jury not to

consider evidence regarding issues McCarthy was foreclosed from raising due to his

failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See Tri-State Hotels, Inc. v. FDIC, 79

F.3d 707, 712 (8th Cir. 1996) (judicial review of claims governed by Financial

Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) is contingent on

completion of administrative process); Am. First Fed., Inc. v. Lake Forest Park, Inc.,

198 F.3d 1259, 1263 n.3 (11th Cir. 1999) (holder of note purchased from Resolution

Trust Corp. (RTC) stands in shoes of RTC and acquires RTC’s protected status under

FIRREA; thus, if maker of note was barred from asserting claim against RTC, it is

similarly barred from asserting claim against note holder). Second, we hold that the

district court did not abuse its discretion in denying McCarthy’s motion to amend his

complaint. See United States ex rel. Lee v. Fairview Health Sys., 413 F.3d 748, 749

(8th Cir. 2005) (abuse-of-discretion standard; futility is valid basis for denying leave

to amend complaint); Bediako v. Stein Mart, Inc., 354 F.3d 835, 841 (8th Cir. 2004)

(district court did not abuse its broad discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion for leave

to amend complaint where litigation process was already in advanced stage and

plaintiff sought to add theories not presented in original complaint). Finally, we

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding as a trial

exhibit an agreement McCarthy concedes was negotiated in an effort to settle his

claim. See Fed. R. Evid. 408 (as general rule, evidence of offer of valuable

consideration to compromise claim is not admissible to prove liability for claim or its

amount; evidence of statements made in compromise negotiations likewise not

admissible); Kraft v. St. John Lutheran Church, 414 F.3d 943, 947 (8th Cir. 2005)

(review for abuse of discretion). While McCarthy now contends that the agreement

was “offered to show a Redemption agreement,” he has failed to show that he ever

presented such an argument to the district court.

The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 05-2453 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/11/2006 Entry ID: 2077376