Richard Doyle v. Southern Guaranty Corporation, Jimmy E. Wood v. Fort Wayne Mortgage Co.

Eleventh Circuit

Richard Doyle v. Southern Guaranty Corporation, Jimmy E. Wood v. Fort Wayne Mortgage Co.

818 F.2d 754, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 7184

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedJune 5, 1987

Docket85-8187, 85-8297

StatusPublished

This text of 818 F.2d 754 (Richard Doyle v. Southern Guaranty Corporation, Jimmy E. Wood v. Fort Wayne Mortgage Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Richard Doyle v. Southern Guaranty Corporation, Jimmy E. Wood v. Fort Wayne Mortgage Co., 818 F.2d 754, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 7184 (11th Cir. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

These cases came to this Court on a 28 U.S.C.A. § 1292(b) appeal of legal questions decided by the district court in denying defendants’ motions for dismissal for failure to state a cause of action and summary judgment. These are diversity actions in which the plaintiffs-borrowers claim a cause of action under state usury laws, and the defendants-lenders assert various defenses including preemption by certain federal statutes.

This Court decided three points in controversy, and certified a fourth question of state law to the Supreme Court of Georgia. Doyle v. Southern Guar. Corp., 795 F.2d 907 (11th Cir.1986). The Georgia court has now answered the question certified. Southern Guaranty Corp., et al., v. Doyle, et al., 256 Ga. 790, 353 S.E.2d 510 (Ga.1987). The denial of defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action and summary judgment is due to be affirmed under the decisions made in those two opinions.

Although the appellants by supplemental brief seek the answers to other questions not presented by their motions and not addressed by the trial court, it is quite apparent that it would be inappropriate for this Court to express any opinion thereon. Appellants’ attorneys have overlooked the fact that this is an interlocutory appeal from a denial of a motion to dismiss, while Quiller v. Barclays American/Credit Inc., 764 F.2d 1400 (11th Cir.1985) (en banc), upon which they rely, was an appeal from a final judgment granting a motion to dismiss, in which the district court was reversed.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED.

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

PER CURIAM:

These cases came to this Court on a 28 U.S.C.A. § 1292(b) appeal of legal questions decided by the district court in denying defendants’ motions for dismissal for failure to state a cause of action and summary judgment. These are diversity actions in which the plaintiffs-borrowers claim a cause of action under state usury laws, and the defendants-lenders assert various defenses including preemption by certain federal statutes.

This Court decided three points in controversy, and certified a fourth question of state law to the Supreme Court of Georgia. Doyle v. Southern Guar. Corp., 795 F.2d 907 (11th Cir.1986). The Georgia court has now answered the question certified. Southern Guaranty Corp., et al., v. Doyle, et al., 256 Ga. 790, 353 S.E.2d 510 (Ga.1987). The denial of defendants’ motions to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action and summary judgment is due to be affirmed under the decisions made in those two opinions.

Although the appellants by supplemental brief seek the answers to other questions not presented by their motions and not addressed by the trial court, it is quite apparent that it would be inappropriate for this Court to express any opinion thereon. Appellants’ attorneys have overlooked the fact that this is an interlocutory appeal from a denial of a motion to dismiss, while Quiller v. Barclays American/Credit Inc., 764 F.2d 1400 (11th Cir.1985) (en banc), upon which they rely, was an appeal from a final judgment granting a motion to dismiss, in which the district court was reversed.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

818 F.2d 754, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 7184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-doyle-v-southern-guaranty-corporation-jimmy-e-wood-v-fort-wayne-ca11-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack