Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-04007/USCOURTS-ca8-03-04007-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-4007

___________

Michael S. McFarland; Donna C. *

McFarland; Roger F. Morgan; *

Cherly Morgan; Norman R. Cates; *

Phillis A. Cates; Wayne E. Laslay; *

Annabell Laslay; Richard A. *

LaPointe; Bonnie L. LaPointe; *

Glen G. Pittman; Opal Pittman; *

G. H. Ricker; Harriett L. Ricker; *

Orson A. Rau; Glenna M. Rau; *

Gary Spears; Carolyn Sue Spears; *

Paul Schafer; Juanita L. Schafer; *

Robert J. Schumacher; Anna E. *

Schumacher; Christ Skiroiotis; *

Sophia Skiroiotis; S. N. Whitcanack; *

Irene P. Whitcanack; Arthur Zago; *

Kathleen Zago, individually and on * Appeal from the United States

behalf of all other purchasers of lots * District Court for the Western

in the Lake Winnebago South * District of Missouri.

Retirement Village Subdivision, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellees, *

*

v. *

*

Winnebago South, Inc.;Robert V. *

Steinhilber; Johnita F. Steinhilber; *

Jack O. Hart; James E. Thompson, Jr.; *

Grandview Bank & Trust Company; *

The Pleasant Hill Bank; Cass County *

Title Company; AMCA, LTD.; Arnold *

M. Cook Associates, Inc.; Arnold M. *

Appellate Case: 03-4007 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/27/2004 Entry ID: 1804170 
1

The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

-2-

Cook; Barry A. Cook; Iris B. Cook; *

Philip T. Goldstein; Thomas C. Mason; *

Emmanuel Rubin; David L. Gibson *

Associates, Inc.; David L. Gibson; Lake *

Winnebago Real Estate & Management *

Company, Inc.; Bonnie Hart; Alex *

Flemington; Halsey Rains; Mrs. *

Shirley Williams; Orien Fehrman; *

Bannister Bank; Bank of Lee Summit; *

Mission State Bank & Trust Company; *

Winnebago South Homeowners *

Association, Inc., *

*

Defendants, *

*

Elvin S. Douglas, Jr., *

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: August 24, 2004

Filed: August 27, 2004

___________

Before WOLLMAN, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

This appeal arises out of a class-action lawsuit filed in 1971 by purchasers of

property in the Winnebago South Retirement Village subdivision. Elvin Douglas

(Douglas), attorney for Winnebago South, Inc. (Winnebago), now appeals the district

court’s1

 orders (1) denying his motion for payment of attorney’s fees and costs from

Appellate Case: 03-4007 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/27/2004 Entry ID: 1804170 
-3-

receivership funds, and (2) denying his motion to order Winnebago’s receiver

partially to withhold distribution of Winnebago’s assets pending resolution of

Douglas’s fees-and-costs motion. 

Initially, we agree with appellees that Douglas’s appeal from the order

declining to withhold distribution of the sale assets is moot, because the receiver has

already distributed the assets (reserving a fund from which Douglas could be partially

compensated). See Nebraska v. Cent. Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste

Compact Comm’n, 187 F.3d 982, 987 (8th Cir. 1999); CMM Cable Rep., Inc. v.

Ocean Coast Props., Inc., 48 F.3d 618, 621 (1st Cir. 1995). 

As to the fee issue, the district court held that equity did not favor paying

Douglas’s fees or expenses, because the principals of Winnebago had perpetrated a

fraud and had engaged in obstructive and unreasonable tactics that delayed the

litigation. Appellees note on appeal that the class plaintiffs, without compensating

Douglas, are to receive only 44% of their out-of-pocket costs after more than thirty

years of litigation. In these circumstances, we conclude that the district court did not

abuse its discretion in declining to compensate Douglas from receivership funds. See

Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Morse, 762 F.2d 60, 63 (8th Cir. 1985)

(standard of review; no abuse of discretion in denying payment of attorney’s fees

from receivership estate where funds remaining in estate were not sufficient to pay

all claims of defrauded customers).

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-4007 Page: 3 Date Filed: 08/27/2004 Entry ID: 1804170