Filed: Jun. 07, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ m 00-31272 _ GENERAL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff- Counter Claimant- Appellant, VERSUS JIMMY C. THOMPSON, ET AL., Defendants, NORTH AMERICAN CONSTRUCTORS, INC., Counter Defendant- Appellee. _ NORTH AMERICAN CONSTRUCTORS, INC., Plaintiff- Counter Defendant- Appellee, VERSUS GENERAL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant- Counter Claimant- Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisia
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ m 00-31272 _ GENERAL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff- Counter Claimant- Appellant, VERSUS JIMMY C. THOMPSON, ET AL., Defendants, NORTH AMERICAN CONSTRUCTORS, INC., Counter Defendant- Appellee. _ NORTH AMERICAN CONSTRUCTORS, INC., Plaintiff- Counter Defendant- Appellee, VERSUS GENERAL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant- Counter Claimant- Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisian..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________
m 00-31272
_______________
GENERAL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.,
Plaintiff-
Counter Claimant-
Appellant,
VERSUS
JIMMY C. THOMPSON, ET AL.,
Defendants,
NORTH AMERICAN CONSTRUCTORS, INC.,
Counter Defendant-
Appellee.
_________________________
NORTH AMERICAN CONSTRUCTORS, INC.,
Plaintiff-
Counter Defendant-
Appellee,
VERSUS
GENERAL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant-
Counter Claimant-
Appellant.
_________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
(98-CV-416)
_________________________
June 4, 2001
Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and WIENER, Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and
Circuit Judges. Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”),
codified in pertinent part at 12 U.S.C. §§
PER CURIAM:* 1821(d)(13)(C) and 1825(b),2 exempt the
General Financial Services, Inc.
2
(“General”), appeals a summary judgment Section 1821(d)(13)(C) states that, when the
declaring two mortgages held by North FDIC is acting as receiver, “[n]o attachment or
American Constructors, Inc. (“Constructors”) execution may issue by any court upon assets in
superior to those assigned to General by the the possession of the receiver”; § 1825(b) provides:
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
(“FDIC”). It is undisputed that General’s When acting as a receiver, the following
provisions shall apply with respect to the
mortgages were originally registered before
Corporation:
Constructors’s; in light, however, of the
FDIC’s failure timely to reinscribe the (1) The Corporation including its
mortgages under LA. CIV. CODE ANN. art. franchise, its capital, reserves, and
3369,1 the court properly found that Louisiana surplus, and its income, shall be
law effected a re-ranking of the mortgages. exempt from all taxation imposed by
See Alexander, 621 So. 2d at 31. any State, county, municipality, or
local taxing authority, except that any
General argues that provisions of the real property of the Corporation shall
be subject to State, territorial, county,
municipal, or local taxation to the same
* extent according to its value as other
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has
determined that this opinion should not be real property is taxed, except that,
published and is not precedent except under the notwithstanding the failure of any
limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. person to challenge an assessment
47.5.4. under State law of such property's
value, such value, and the tax thereon,
1
Article 3369 was repealed in 1992. Because shall be determined as of the period for
it was in force at the time General’s mortgages which such tax is imposed.
were originally registered, however, it governs the
reinscription requirements. Sec. Nat’l Trust v. Al- (2) No property of the Corporation shall
exander, 621 So. 2d 30, 31 (La. App. 2d Cir.), be subject to levy, attachment,
writ denied,
629 So. 2d 30 (La. 1993). (continued...)
2
FDICSSand General, as its assigneeSSfrom
Louisiana’s reinscription requirements and
thus prohibit Louisiana from re-ranking the
mortgages. As this court recently stated,
however, § 1825(b) does not exempt the FDIC
from Louisiana’s reinscription requirements:
FIRREA does not preclude the
application of Louisiana reinscription
law to the FDIC’s property. Nothing in
FIRREA prevents Louisiana law from
recognizing either the FDIC's obligation
to reinscribe mortgages or the loss of
ranking suffered by the FDIC if it fails to
meet this obligation.
FDIC v. McFarland, 243 F.3d 876, 886 (5th
Cir. 2001). Moreover, even assuming § 1821-
(d)(13)(C) protects the FDIC from Louisiana’s
requirements, “no authority supports the pro-
position that section 1821(d)(13)(C) creates
assignable rights.”
Id. at 887 n.42.
We find no basis for distinguishing McFar-
land. The judgment is AFFIRMED.
2
(...continued)
garnishment, foreclosure, or
sale without the consent of the
Corporation, nor shall any
involuntary lien attach to the
property of the Corporation.
(3) The Corporation shall not be liable for
any amounts in the nature of penalties
or fines, including those arising from
the failure of any person to pay any
real property, personal property,
probate, or recording tax or any
recording or filing fees when due.
3
