U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1970

United States v. D. W. Dooley, James S. Welch and Chelsea Title & Guaranty Co., a Corporation Doing Business in Florida

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided April 1, 1970 · Bell, Simpson

424 F.2d 1067; 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 10040 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Edward F. Boardman, U. S. Atty., Tampa, Fla., Alan S. Rosenthal, Leonard Schaitman, Robert E. Kopp, Attys., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff-appellant., William B. Mesmer, Orlando, Fla., for Dooley & Welch., Howard P. Rives, Clearwater, Fla., for appellee Chelsea Title & Guaranty Co.

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision. The 7 that cite it most often are listed here.

In re Grand Jury Subpoena (District Court, D. Massachusetts 2004)
Clarence Labelle Post No. 217, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States v. United States (8th Cir. 1978)
Sukumar v. Nautilus, Inc. (District Court, W.D. Virginia 2012)
Acosta v. Reparto Saman Inc. (In re Acosta) (United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Puerto Rico 2011)
Clearmeadow Investments, LLC v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2009)
Ratner v. Young (District Court, Virgin Islands 1979)
Munoz v. International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees & Moving Picture Machine Operators (5th Cir. 1977)

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:

The district court granted summary judgment against the United States, plaintiff below, in its suit to recover from closing agents (a firm of attorneys as to 8 transactions and a title company as to 21 transactions) for the loss occasioned by the insolvency of the mortgagee in transactions for resale of homes previously foreclosed upon or repossessed by the Federal Housing Administration as insuror of mortgages on such properties, when the closing agents had recorded deeds to the properties prior to receiving the purchase money from the defaulting mortgagee.

On oral argument, appellant’s counsel stated that basically there was no dispute as to the facts and that the government had therefore filed no counter-affidavits. We construe this as a concession that the facts were not in *1068 dispute so that the district court could properly consider entry of summary judgment under Rule 56, F.R.Civ.P.

We conclude that the appellant has failed to demonstrate, below or here, that any breach of their contractual responsibilities was committed by the closing agents. Hence the summary judgment in their favor was proper.

Affirmed.

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