The HONORABLE THOMAS M. REAVLEY, United States 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606 VANDALIA PARTNERSHIP, a * [NOT TO BE PUBLISHED]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 of

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 Vandalia

collected between June of 1992 and May of 1994. The state and

federal courts have held that 606 Vandalia, as vendor on its

contract for deed, was entitled under Minnesota law to the rent

until the contract was terminated. There was no termination

until May 5, 1994.

JLT does not contest that but claims that equity should

require that 606 Vandalia reimburse it for the amount it had to

pay to redeem the property equal to the amount of the rent

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 were

parties there. Most of the activity was between 606 Vandalia

and RTC. JLT was the mortgagor of the mortgages RTC held, and

JLT was the vendor under the contract for deed with 606

Vandalia. That contract required JLT to keep payments on the

mortgage current, but JLT defaulted. 606 Vandalia ceased

making payment on its contract for deed when it learned of

JLT’s default. In the lawsuit RTC obtained a court order for

606 Vandalia to make its contract payment into court, but 606

Vandalia refused to do so until the court made it clear that

the payments were to be credited on the particular 
-3-

mortgage that was senior in interest to the contract for deed.

In June 1992 the court ordered 606 Vandalia to pay on its

contract or to Towle, as receiver. The court expressly

authorized the receiver to collect the rent directly, but not

until the contract for deed was canceled.

JLT did not object to this order and cannot now argue

that the receiver should have collected the rent directly. JLT

simply says that it was entitled to assume that 606 Vandalia

was paying money to the receiver. However, the court’s order

required the receiver to post bond prior to confirmation, and

this was never done until JLT waived the bond requirement and

obtained confirmation of the receiver’s appointment in May of

1994.

Who lost and who gained by the two year delay in

activation of this receivership, we cannot say. But we can say

that JLT should have pursued its rights, if any it had, in that

proceeding, and it demonstrates no equitable ground for a

recovery in the present suit.

2. JLT also claims that 606 Vandalia is liable for tortious

interference with JLT’s prospective economic advantage to

purchase assets from RTC. We have several difficulties with

that claim. Surely 606 Vandalia was entitled to protect its

own interest in the property, and the record shows nothing

more. Further, we fail to see an issue of economic opportunity

for JLT, guilty of multiple defaults on debts owed to RTC. But

the easiest answer is the one the district court gave. The

claim is an intentional tort, a personal wrong barred by the

two-year statute of limitations.
-4-

3. Finally, JLT claims that RTC violated a duty to it in delaying

foreclosure and in allowing the receivership to remain

inactive. Actually, there was no receivership while RTC owned

the note and mortgage. As for the foreclosure delay, the RTC

is a federal instrumentality with a specific mission to protect

creditors and public funds, and it is not responsible to

protect any particular debtor or to see that a court receiver

does so. Again, JLT was a party to the court proceeding where

the receivership and foreclosure were pending, and there was

where it should have pursued the complaints it makes now.

Affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

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