TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Gerald A. Rimmel, Receiver of Mansion House Center v. Mercantile Trust Company National Association, Samuel R. Pierce, Secretary of United States Department of Housing and Urban Development and Mansion House Center South Redevelopment Company, Mercantile Trust Company National Association, a National Banking Association v. Mansion House Center South Redevelopment Company, a Missouri Limited Partnership, Mercantile Trust Company National Association v. Mansion House Center South Redevelopment Company, a Missouri Limited Partnership

Gerald A. Rimmel, Receiver of Mansion House Ctr. v. Mercantile Trust Co. Nat'l Ass'n, Samuel R. Pierce, Sec'y of United States Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev. & Mansion House Ctr. South Redevelopment Co., Mercantile Trust Co. Nat'l Ass'n, a Nat'l Banking Ass'n v. Mansion House Ctr. South Redevelopment Co., a Mo. Ltd. P'ship, Mercantile Trust Co. Nat'l Ass'n v. Mansion House Ctr. South Redevelopment Co., a Mo. Ltd. P'ship, 742 F.2d 476 (8th Cir. 1984)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
August 29, 1984
Docket
No. 82-2293
Citations
742 F.2d 4761984 U.S. App. LEXIS 19098

Opinion

742 F.2d 476

Gerald A. RIMMEL, Receiver of Mansion House Center, Appellee, v. MERCANTILE TRUST COMPANY NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Appellant, Samuel R. Pierce, Secretary of United States Department of Housing and Urban Development and Mansion House Center South Redevelopment Company, Appellees. MERCANTILE TRUST COMPANY NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a National Banking Association, Appellant, v. MANSION HOUSE CENTER SOUTH REDEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a Missouri Limited Partnership, et al., Appellees. MERCANTILE TRUST COMPANY NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Appellant, v. MANSION HOUSE CENTER SOUTH REDEVELOPMENT COMPANY, a Missouri Limited Partnership, Appellee.

No. 82-2293.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Aug. 29, 1984.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, John F. Nangle, Chief Judge.

G. Lindsay Simmons, William J. Slosberg, Cotten, Day & Doyle, Washington, D.C., Eugene Portman, Portman & Portman, Robert Hoemeke, Lewis, Rice, Tucker, Allen & Chubb, St. Louis, Mo., for appellee Towers Hotel Corp.

Charles Alan Seigel, Stolar, Heitzmann, Eder, Seigel & Harris, James F. Gunn, Gunn & Gunn, St. Louis, Mo., for appellants.

Thomas E. Dittmeier, U.S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., J. Paul McGrath, Asst. Atty. Gen., J. Christopher Kohn, James G. Bruen, Jr., Civil Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for the U.S.

1

Gene M. Zafft, Merle L. Silverstein, David V. Capes, Rosenblum, Goldenhersh, Silverstein & Zafft, P.C., St. Louis, Mo., for appellee Gerald A. Rimmel.

2

Before ROSS and FAGG, Circuit Judges, and WOODS, District Judge. *

ORDER 3

On June 15, 1983, this court heard arguments from the parties in Appeals Nos. 82-2216 and 82-2293. Subsequently, on June 21, 1983, we entered an order remanding No. 82-2216 (the "Foreclosure Settlement" appeal) back to the district court for an expedited hearing and definitive ruling on the revised settlement proposal in that case. The "Mercantile Settlement" appeal (No. 82-2293) was held in abeyance, however, because this court believed that a settlement acceptable to the district court, and the parties involved in the Mansion House cases, would soon be forthcoming, effectively resolving the issues raised in the Mercantile appeal. Such a settlement has so far failed to materialize.

4

On July 20, 1984, this court again heard arguments in the consolidated Mansion House appeals (Nos. 82-2216, 82-2293, 831645 and 83-1754). After careful consideration we have determined that the matters in the Mercantile appeal No. 82-2293 should be expeditiously resolved, regardless of the eventual disposition of the remaining Mansion House cases. In our view, it would be inequitable to require Mercantile Trust Company to remain hostage to the ongoing and complex disputes of the other Mansion House litigants.

5

Accordingly, we reverse that part of the district court's September 23, 1982 order which denied Mercantile's motion to compel closing and performance of the Mercantile settlement agreement, executed May 18, 1982, by Mercantile, HUD and the ownership-Partnerships. Further, we remand the case for disposition as follows:

6

1) all funds escrowed by Receiver Gerald A. Rimmel for the express purpose of resolving the Mercantile litigation, including those funds within the Registry of the court, are to be paid to Mercantile Trust Company forthwith;

7

2) the parties in the Mercantile action should be instructed to fully comply with the terms of the Mercantile settlement agreement; and 8

3) the court shall dismiss Causes Nos. 78-45C, 82-0115C and 82-0123C (the Mercantile cases) in accordance with the Mercantile settlement agreement upon Mercantile's receipt of the amounts owing.

9

It is so ordered.

* The HONORABLE HENRY WOODS, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas, sitting by designation

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1984: 219842026peak 1984 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Altman750 F.2d 684 (8th Cir. 1984)
  2. United States v. Norman S750 F.2d 684 (8th Cir. 1984)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Norman S750 F.2d 684 (8th Cir. 1984)
  2. United States v. Altman750 F.2d 684 (8th Cir. 1984)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Rimmel v. Mercantile Trust Co. Nat'l Ass'n, 742 F.2d 476 (8th Cir. 1984) 1

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list