Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
United States v. Parsons
Citation: 57 F. App'x 249Docket: Nos. 02-3029, 02-3470, 02-3545, 02-3549
Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; February 5, 2003; Federal Appellate Court
Donald L. Parsons, representing himself, is appealing four district court orders that denied motions challenging a foreclosure judgment in favor of the United States, which was filed under 28 U.S.C. 1345. The case has been referred to a panel that unanimously decided against the need for oral argument. The United States initiated the suit on May 15, 1998, against Parsons, his ex-wife Peggy L. Parsons Frontz, and several other parties, alleging that Parsons and Frontz had defaulted on promissory notes secured by real estate mortgages and security agreements. The United States sought foreclosure on the properties involved. On August 8, 1999, the district court granted summary judgment for the United States after Parsons failed to respond. A default judgment was also issued against multiple parties. Following a series of court orders, including an order of foreclosure on December 14, 1999, and a sale order on February 3, 2000, the court confirmed the sale of the property in 2001 and distributed the proceeds in January 2002. Parsons did not appeal the foreclosure judgment but later filed several motions, four of which are the subject of the current appeals. These include a request for the return of his farm, a Freedom of Information Act request, a counterclaim against the United States, and a motion to clear his name of alleged false charges. The district court denied all these motions, and Parsons has since appealed those decisions, which are being treated as motions for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) due to the significant delay between the foreclosure judgment and his motions. The review of the district court’s denial of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion is conducted for abuse of discretion. An appeal from such a denial does not permit review of the underlying judgment. The court's focus is solely on whether the plaintiff qualifies for reopening the merits of the underlying claims based on specified circumstances in Rule 60(b). In this case, the court determined that Parsons did not demonstrate any valid grounds for relief under Rule 60(b)(1) or (6). Additionally, Parsons' motions were filed more than a year after the district court’s judgment, disqualifying him from relief under Rule 60(b)(1) and (3). Provisions of Rule 60(b)(4) and (5) were deemed inapplicable, and Parsons failed to show the exceptional circumstances required for relief under Rule 60(b)(6). Consequently, all pending motions were denied, and the district court’s orders were affirmed.