Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 1984

Robert N. Williams and Patricia M. Williams v. A.L. Bishop

Robert N. Williams and Patricia M. Williams v. A.L. Bishop
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Decided May 21, 1984 · Hill, Henderson, Tuttle
732 F.2d 885; 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 22340 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Peter G. Williams, Columbus, Ga., for plaintiffs-appellants., J. Willard Register, Columbus, Ga., for A.L. Bishop., Marion Nelson Jones, Columbus, Ga., for W. Royster and B. Royster.

Robert N. Williams and Patricia M. Williams v. A.L. Bishop

Cases that cite this one

191 later published cases cite this decision. The 22 that cite it most often are listed here.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a summary judgment entered by the district court for two of three defendants named in the appellants’ suit. The action was brought to set aside a conveyance that resulted from a foreclosure by Bishop of property owned by the Williamses. The Williamses claimed that they had been defrauded by having been lulled into a belief by Bishop, who held a mortgage on their property, that he would not immediately foreclose, that he would buy the property in a foreclosure sale, if one was had, and that he would divide any profit made by reason of a subsequent sale with them. The property was later bid in by Bishop and then sold by him to the Roysters for a sum in excess of $50,000 above the cost to him.

The trial court found in favor of the Roysters, the ultimate purchasers, on their motion for summary judgment because it found that they had no knowledge or participation in any of the acts charged against Bishop. The court ordered a judgment to be entered in their favor. However, he did not enter the finding required under Rule 54(b) F.R.C.P. to the effect that there was no cause for delay. 1 Upon entry of the judgment in favor of the Roysters, there still remained pending in the district court the Williams claim against Bishop and the Roysters counterclaim against the *886 Williamses. It is clear, therefore, that the summary judgment favoring the Roysters was a judgment for “fewer than all the claims or parties.” Since our jurisdiction lies from a “final judgment” we are without jurisdiction over this appeal. Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Ericksons, Inc., 396 F.2d 134 (5th Cir. 1968).

The appeal is DISMISSED.

1

. Rule 54(b) provides:

Judgment Upon Multiple Claims or Involving Multiple Parties
When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or a third party claim, or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of a judgment.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.