### The HONORABLE THOMAS M. REAVLEY, United S tates Circuit Judge * 

### for the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation. No. 96-3918

JLT MOBIL BUILDING LIMITED * PARTNERSHIP, a Minnesota limited * partnership; GERALD L. TROOIEN, * * Plaintiffs-Appellants, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * District of Minnesota. * 606 VANDALIA PARTNERSHIP, a * [NOT TO BE PUBLISHED] Minnesota partnership; * RESOLUTION TRUST, as Receiver * for Midwest Savings Association, * F.A., * * Defendants-Appellees, * * BEI REAL ESTATE SERVICES/RITZ * ADVISORY SERVICES, JOINT * VENTURE; AMRESCO MANAGEMENT, * Formerly known as BEI * Management, Inc., a Texas * corporation; BEI REAL ESTATE * SERVICES, INC., a Georgia * corporation; TOWLE REAL ESTATE * COMPANY, a Minnesota * corporation, * * Defendants. *

Submitted: June 12, 1997 Filed: August 15, 1997

Before LOKEN, REAVLEY and JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judges. *

### The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District 1 

### Court for the District of Minnesota.
-2- PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. All claims o f 1 appellants have been resolved by prior litigation, or by prescription or lack of merit. Specifically:

1. JLT claims that 606 Vandalia owes for the rents 606 Vandali a collected between June o f 1992 and May of 1994. The state and federal courts have held that 606 Vandalia, as vendor on it s contract for deed, was entitled under Minnesota law to the rent unt il the contract was terminated. There was no terminatio n until May 5, 1994.

JLT do es not contest that but claims that equity shoul d require that 606 Vandalia reimburse it for the amou nt it had to pay to redeem the property equal to the amount of the ren t collected during those two years.

JLT’s claim is based entirely on what transpired in a prior lawsuit, initiated by RTC to foreclose mortgages on the property
. All of the parties to the present action wer e parties there. Most of the activity was between 606 Vandalia and RTC. JLT was the mo rtgagor of the mortgages RTC held, and JLT w as the vendor under the contract for deed with 60 6 Vandalia. That contract required JLT to keep payments on the mortgag e current, but JLT defaulted. 606 Vandalia cease d maki ng payment on its contract for deed when it learned o f JLT’s default. In the lawsuit RTC obtained a court order fo r 606 Vandalia to make its contract payment into court, but 606 Vandalia refused to do so until the court made it clear tha t the payments were to be credited on the particular

### -3- mortgage that was seniorin interest to the contract for deed. In June 1992 the court ordered 606 Vandalia to pay on it s
con tract or to Towle, as receiver. The court expressl y authorizedthe receiver to collect the rent directly, but not until the contract for deed was canceled.

JLT did n ot object to this order and cannot now argu e that the receiver should have collected the rent di rectly. JLT simplysays that it was entitled to assume that 606 Vandali a
was paying money to the receiver. However, the court’s order requiredthe receiver to post bond prior to confirmation, and this was never done until JLT waived the bond requirement and obtainedconfirmation of the receiver’s appointment in May of 1994.

Who lost and who gained by the two year delay i n activation of this receivership, we cannot say. Bu t we can say that JLT should have pursued its rights, if any it had, in that proceed ing, and it demonstrates no equitable ground for a recovery in the present suit.

2. JLT also claims that 606 Vandalia is liable for tortiou s int erference with JLT’s prospective economic advantage t o pur chase assets from RTC. We have several difficulties wit h that claim. Surely 606 Vandalia was entitled to protect it s
own interest in the property, and the record shows nothin g more. Further, we fail to see an issue of economic opportunity for JLT, guilty of multiple defaults on debts owed to RTC. But th e easiest answer is the one the district court gave. Th e claimis an intentional tort, a personal wrong barred by th e two-year statute of limitations.

### -4- 3. Finally, JLT claims that RTC violated a duty to it in delaying for eclosure and in allowing the receivership to remai n inactive. Actually, the re was no receivership while RTC owned the note and mortgage. As for the foreclosure delay, the RTC is a federal instrumentality with a specific missio n to protect
cre ditors and public funds, and it is not responsible t o protect any particular debtor or to see that a court receiver does so. Again, JLT was a party to the court proceeding where the re ceivership and foreclosure were pending, and there wa s where it should have pursued the complaints it makes now.

Affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.