First Financial Bank vs CS Assets, LLC, West Beach, LLC , 434 F. App'x 897 ( 2011 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-12165 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Non-Argument Calendar JULY 22, 2011
________________________ JOHN LEY
CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 1:08-cv-00731-WS-M
FIRST FINANCIAL BANK,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
CS ASSETS, LLC,
Defendant - Appellant,
WEST BEACH, LLC,
Defendant.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Alabama
________________________
(July 22, 2011)
Before TJOFLAT, EDMONDSON and CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Defendant-Appellant CS Assets, LLC (“CS Assets”) appeals the district
court’s order granting the motion for voluntary dismissal of Plaintiff-Appellee
First Financial Bank (“Bank”). No reversible error has been shown; we affirm.
Both CS Assets and Bank were mortgagees on certain property in Baldwin
County, Alabama. CS Assets held a senior mortgage; Bank was the junior
mortgagee. After the mortgagor defaulted on both mortgage loans, CS Assets
foreclosed on the property; CS Assets was the purchaser at the foreclosure sale.
CS Assets and Bank were unable to agree upon a redemption price; Bank then
filed a redemption action against CS Assets pursuant to Alabama’s statutory
redemption law.1 Alabama Code §§ 6-5-247, et seq. Bank deposited over three
million dollars in the court registry to cover the redemption.
Both parties moved for summary judgment advancing what each believed to
be an equitable redemption price. In its summary judgment motion, Bank alerted
the court to the possibility that it might seek voluntary dismissal if the redemption
price were set at an amount higher than it was willing to pay. When the court
1
Bank’s redemption action sought to redeem seven parcels foreclosed upon by CS Assets.
CS Assets objected to inclusion of two of the parcels because Bank was no mortgagee on those
parcels. The district court granted CS Bank’s partial motion to dismiss those two parcels but
cautioned that CS Assets had waived its right, if any, to object to piecemeal redemption.
2
determined the redemption price, the court did not enter judgment; it instead heard
the parties on the propriety of disbursement of funds and entry of final judgment.
Bank filed a motion for voluntary dismissal of its redemption claim with prejudice
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2). Bank’s motion to dismiss with prejudice was
granted.
We review the grant of voluntary dismissal for abuse of discretion. See
Pontenberg v. Boston Scientific Corp., 252 F.3d 1253, 1255 (11th Cir. 2001)
(“The district court enjoys broad discretion in determining whether to allow a
voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2).”). And “in most cases, a voluntary
dismissal should be granted unless the defendant will suffer clear legal prejudice.”
Id.CS Assets contends that the district court abused its discretion. According
to CS Assets, it was entitled to entry of judgment in the amount of the redemption
price already determined by the district court. The district court fully considered
and rejected CS Asset’s claimed entitlement: no Alabama authority recognizes the
legal rights claimed by CS Assets as a redemption defendant. And, as the district
court order explains, the Alabama Supreme Court has twice indicated -- albeit in
dicta -- that a redemption defendant cannot compel the redemptioner to complete
the purchase of property subject to the redemption action at the redemption price
3
set by the court. See Rhoden v. Miller, 495 So.2d 54, 58 n.3 (Ala. 1986)
(“judgment ordering redemption ... merely allows the plaintiff to purchase the
property from the defendant....Failure to comply with the terms of the judgment
results only in the plaintiff’s losing his right of redemption. The defendant cannot
enforce payment.”); Byrd v. Southeast Enterprises, Inc., 812 So.2d 266, 268 n.2
(Ala. 2001) (same).
We see no error in the district court’s reasoned decision and no abuse of
discretion. For the reasons set out in the district court’s 8 April 2010 order, CS
Assets failed to show it would suffer legal prejudice from the grant of Bank’s
voluntary motion to dismiss with prejudice.2 And because we conclude the
dismissal with prejudice is due to be affirmed, we need not address the many
issues raised by both parties about the redemption price set out in the district
court’s 13 January 2010 order.
AFFIRMED.
2
We recognize that the clear expressions of the Alabama Supreme Court on the right of
redemptioners to walk away from a court-determined redemption price were not holdings of
those cases. Nonetheless, we reject CS Assets’ contention that this appeal raises an issue
appropriate for certification to the Alabama Supreme Court. The Alabama Supreme Court has
spoken clearly and unequivocally on this issue. For us, these pronouncements provide sufficient
and significant guidance on how the Alabama Supreme Court would rule if presented with this
issue. See Jennings v. BIC Corp., 181 F.3d 1250, 1254-55 (11th Cir. 1999).
4