Opinion ID: 3014377
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Loan

Text: applicable to mortgage foreclosure actions? Applying the maxim that “time The defendants in this case are the does not run against the sovereign,” and fee owners, respectively, of three parcels finding no federal statute to the contrary, of land on St. Thomas, and a variety of we conclude that there is not. We lienholders on those properties. Only the therefore affirm the District Court’s order fee owners are participating in this appeal, for a foreclosure sale and vacate the stay and we shall refer to them as the that this Court entered pending appeal. 1 defendants. They are Aretha Matthias and the heirs of Wesley Matthias (Michael A. Matthias, Rosemarie Webster, Bruce W. 1 Some appellants also claimed that the Matthias, Elizabeth Olivacce, Laurie District Court erred in certain respects in Thomas, and Carrie Eddy); Carlton and computing the sum owing on the Elecia Parson; and Oswald Venzen. mortgages. Based on our independent Because the defendants rest their case examination of the entire record before primarily on statute of limitations grounds, the District Court, we conclude that these some chronology of the events is issues were not timely presented to the important. District Court—not in the pleadings, not on counsel’s own initiative, and not even Pursuant to a federal loan guarantee in response to UMLIC’s motion for program for small businesses, a loan was summary judgment. “As a general rule, made on April 12, 1988 by Barclays Bank we do not consider on appeal issues that PLC (“Barclays”) to Matthias Enterprises, were not raised before the district court.” a corporation run by the various Appalachian States Low-Level defendants that owned and operated a Radioactive Waste Comm’n v. Pena, 126 bakery and convenience store on St. F.3d 193, 196 (3d Cir. 1997) (quoting Thomas. The loan carried an interest rate Tabron v. Grace, 6 F.3d 147, 153 n.2 (3d of 2.75% above prime, variable quarterly. Cir. 1993)). There are exceptional The principal amount of the loan was circumstances that call for departure $550,000, of which 85% was guaranteed from this rule, see id., but none are by the SBA. The loan was secured by the present here. Thus we hold these issues personal guarantees of Aretha and Wesley waived and will not address them. We note too, based upon the colloquy at oral argument, that it is lienholders who are not participating in highly doubtful that resolution of these this appeal) on the properties so far collateral matters in a manner favorable exceeds the probable foreclosure sale to defendants mortgagees would make a prices of the properties that the difference: It appears that the sum of the mortgagors have no chance of recovering liens (both UMLIC’s and those of junior a residue from the foreclosure sale. 3 Matthias, Carlton and Elecia Parson, and instrument, and further to Oswald and Alice Venzen.2 The secure the performance by Matthiases, Parsons, and Venzens secured the Borrower of the terms of their personal guarantees by granting the Loan Agreement and mortgages in favor of Barclays on their related loan documents own real property using the following executed of even date language:3 herewith, and also to secure any and all sums now or WITNESSETH, that to from time to time hereafter secure the guaranty of owing by Borrower and for payment by MATTHIAS which Borrower may be E N T E R P R I S E S , liable, solely or jointly, the I N C OR P O R A TE D (the Mo rtgagor [i.e., the “Borrower”) of an Matthiases] hereby grants indebtedness to the and gives to the Mortgagee Mortgagee to be paid with a Second Priority Mortgage interest according to a in the principal sum of ONE certain promissory note (the HUNDRED FIFTY “Note”), bearing even date THOUSAND DOLLARS herewith, executed by $150,000.00 plus interest on Borrower pursuant to the [description of property terms of a certain Loan follows]. Agreement of even date herew ith betw een th e Judging from an SBA document Borrower and the captioned “Lend er’s Transcript of Mortgagee [i.e., Barclays] Account,” Matthias Enterprises defaulted (the “Loan Agreement”), the on the loan as early as the fall of 1988. terms of which are hereby Matthias Enterprises was certainly in made a part of this default when it filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in 1992. This petition was later converted to a Chapter 7 2 liquidation. Effective February 15, 1994 The record suggests that Alice (less than six years from the time of Venzen no longer owns or resides on the default, under any reading), the SBA made parcel mortgaged by her and Oswald good on its guarantee and repurchased the Venzen. She is not a party on appeal. loan from Barclays, ending Barclays’ 3 This language is taken from the note involvement. Through a series of executed by the Matthiases, but the same assignments in 1999 and 2000, the loans language, mutatis mutandis, was used in came to rest with UM LIC, which, on April the notes executed by the Parsons and by 28, 2000 advised the defendants that the the Venzens. loan was in default. This proceeding 4 followed.4 held a hearing on what UMLIC’s counsel styled as a “motion for summary judgment