In an action seeking to foreclose on plaintiff’s security interests in loan collateral, district court’s order allowing the foreclosure is affirmed where: 1) collateral estoppel precluded defendants from raising the statute of limitations; 2) plaintiff would be prejudiced by a subrogation that would allow one defendant to compete on an equal or superior footing for the secured interest in the irrigation equipment at issue; and 3) plaintiff was entitled to attorney’s fees under the debt contracts between the parties.
Read Rabo Agrifinance Inc. v. Terra XXI Ltd., No. 08-10143
Appellate Information
Filed September 22, 2009
Judges
Opinion by Judge Jones
You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help
Civil Rights
Block on Trump’s Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
Criminal
Judges Can Release Secret Grand Jury Records
Politicians Can’t Block Voters on Facebook, Court Rules
