Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Farm Credit Bank of St. Paul, Formerly Known as the Federal Land Bank of St. Paul v. Marvin G. Finstrom, Geraldine Finstrom, Husband & Wife

888 F.2d 559

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1989-10-31
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. The Farm Credit Bank of St. Paul filed a complaint in Minnesota state court against Marvin and Geraldine Finstrom seeking restitution of real estate purchased by the bank at a mortgage foreclosure sale. The Finstroms removed the case to federal district court claiming the bank had violated their constitutional rights and their rights under the 1987 Agricultural Credit Act. The district court, on its own motion, remanded the case to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), concluding it did not have original federal question or diversity jurisdiction, or removal jurisdiction.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Farm Credit Bank of St. Paul, Formerly Known as the Federal Land Bank of St. Paul v. Marvin G. Finstrom, Geraldine Finstrom, Husband & Wife. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
5 opinions
FARM CREDIT BANK OF ST. PAUL v. FINSTROM,888 F.2d 559(8th Cir. 1989)
FARM CREDIT BANK OF ST. PAUL, FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE FEDERAL LAND BANK OF ST.
PAUL, APPELLEE, v. MARVIN G. FINSTROM, GERALDINE FINSTROM, HUSBAND WIFE,
APPELLANTS.
No. 89-5365.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted September 5, 1989.
Decided October 31, 1989.
Finstrom, pro se.

Mark S. Ullery, New Ulm, Minn., for appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
Before McMILLIAN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and MAGILL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
[1] The Farm Credit Bank of St. Paul filed a complaint in Minnesota state court against Marvin and Geraldine Finstrom seeking restitution of real estate purchased by the bank at a mortgage foreclosure sale. The Finstroms removed the case to federal district court claiming the bank had violated their constitutional rights and their rights under the 1987 Agricultural Credit Act. The district court, on its own motion, remanded the case to state court pursuant to28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), concluding it did not have original federal question or diversity jurisdiction, or removal jurisdiction. This appeal followed.

[2] Remand orders "issued under § 1447(c) and invoking the grounds specified therein — that removal was improvident and without jurisdiction — are immune from review under § 1447(d)."Thermtron Prods., Inc. v. Hermandsdorfer,423 U.S. 336,346,96 S.Ct. 584,590,46 L.Ed.2d 542(1976).See also First Nat'l Bankv. Wright,775 F.2d 245,246-47(8th Cir. 1985). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.See8th Cir.R. 12(a).