United States v. Buchman
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9909
7th Cir.2011Background
- Buchman defaulted on Farm Service Agency debts secured by land; the United States foreclosed and a default judgment was entered in April 2009.
- A public auction in April 2010 sold three parcels for $322,000, insufficient to cover all debts; the district court confirmed the sale and entered a deficiency judgment.
- Buchman filed no answer to the complaint; he sought no stay to undo the sale and later sought redemption only after the sale occurred.
- The district court denied post-sale redemption and threshold relief, stating lack of opportunity to redeem and the length of litigation argued against reopening.
- The United States argued the appellate appeal was moot because the sale completed; Buchman argued for redemption and a higher sale price.
- The Seventh Circuit held the case moot only to the extent of directing return of property to buyers is impractical, but litigation could still proceed to adjust rights among the parties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the appeal moot after the sale completion? | United States: sale completion moots it; buyers are indispensable for reversal. | Buchman: litigation remains live because relief could adjust financial rights. | Not moot; litigation may continue for financial adjustments among parties. |
| Was the redemption opportunity forfeited due to delay and thus not reviewable on the merits? | United States: redemption window forfeited by delay; not appealable on merits. | Buchman: entitled to redemption if no workout offered after default. | Forfeited; district court did not abuse its discretion in not addressing merits. |
| Was the sale price too low to confirm under Wisconsin law? | United States: price not shockingly low; auction price reflects true value. | Buchman: appraisals show higher value; sale price too low. | Not subject to reversal; a competitive auction yields reliable value; no shock to conscience. |
Key Cases Cited
- Duncan v. Farm Credit Bank of St. Louis, 940 F.2d 1099 (7th Cir.1991) (complete foreclosures not to be upset without stay or personal equities)
- FDIC v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260 (7th Cir.1986) (bankruptcy/foreclosure sale not to be undone absent exceptional circumstances)
- Hower v. Molding Systems Engineering Corp., 445 F.3d 935 (7th Cir.2006) (principles on foreclosures and the effect of sale on litigation)
- In re Vlasek, 325 F.3d 955 (7th Cir.2003) (foreclosure sale outcomes and related rights post-sale)
- In re UNR Industries, Inc., 20 F.3d 766 (7th Cir.1994) (ongoing financial adjustments can keep a case alive after sale)
- United States v. Einum, 992 F.2d 761 (7th Cir.1993) (redemption rights following default and workout opportunities)
- Kimbell Foods, Inc. v. United States, 440 U.S. 715 (U.S. Supreme Court 1979) (price confirmation standards for foreclosures)