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

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, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 16304, 1989 WL 128500

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·Decided October 31, 1989·No. 89-5365·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

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. This appeal followed.

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 Bank v. Wright, 775 F.2d 245, 246-47 (8th Cir.1985). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. See 8th Cir.R. 12(a).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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. This appeal followed.

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 Bank v. Wright, 775 F.2d 245, 246-47 (8th Cir.1985). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. See 8th Cir.R. 12(a).

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, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 16304, 1989 WL 128500 (8th Cir. 1989).

Pincite

888 F.2d 559 (Farm Credit Bank of St. Paul, Formerly Known as the Federal Land Bank of St. Paul v. Marvin G. Finstrom, Geraldine Finstrom, Husband & Wife) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related