Opinion
No. A00-0069-CV (HRH)
February 6, 2002
ORDER
Motion for Final Order
The defendants Dietrich and Mary Rempel move for an order finalizing the court's order of December 11, 2001, by which the plaintiff was granted summary judgment as to Counts 1 and 2 of the complaint. The motion is unopposed.
Clerk's Docket No. 202.
Clerk's Docket No. 200.
Although the defendants Rempel do not so state, the court presumes that this motion is brought pursuant to Rule 54(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which authorizes the court to enter final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties "only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express determination for the entry of judgment." Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b).
In support of their motion, the defendants Rempel urge that when the court entered summary judgment against them on Counts 1 and 2 of the plaintiff's complaint, it had decided all of the claims against the Dietrich Rempels. The court does not see it that way. Counts 1 and 2 of the plaintiff's complaint reduce to judgment the plaintiff's tax claims against the Dietrich Rempels. Count 3 of the plaintiff's complaint seeks to foreclose tax liens against the Dietrich Rempels. Ordinarily, the Dietrich Rempels would have a significant interest in the matter of whether or not tax liens against them were foreclosed for non-payment of taxes. The court supposes, without knowing, that it is the Dietrich Rempels' view that they have no interest in any property as to which the tax liens could be foreclosed. Even assuming that might be the case, Count 4 of the plaintiff's complaint — which also seeks to foreclose the tax liens in question — in substance alleges that the Mark Rempels are nominees or alter egos of the Dietrich Rempels with respect to certain property. The Dietrich Rempels deny the latter allegations for lack of information.
The plaintiff's second amended complaint continues with counts numbering up to 14, which alternate between claims to foreclose liens against the Dietrich Rempels with respect to other parcels of land, and claims to foreclose tax liens because other parties are the nominee or alter ego of Dietrich and Mary Rempel. As to all of these, the Dietrich Rempels answer that they are without sufficient information and therefore deny the allegations.
Because the court is of the view that the Dietrich Rempels are very much involved in the lien foreclosure side of this case, there is, in the opinion of the court, good reason why a final decision should be deferred as to the Dietrich Rempels. If and to the extent that the court were to find that the Dietrich Rempels were mere nominees or alter egos of other parties — that they were the real owners of specific parcels of land which might be subject to foreclosure for non-payment of taxes — it is the court's perception that the Dietrich Rempels would have a significant interest and would no doubt wish to appeal in the event of an adverse decision. Under these circumstances, the court is confronted with approving piecemeal appeals, which are very much disfavored.
Because the court perceives that this litigation is not really concluded as to the Dietrich Rempels and that final judgment as to Counts 1 and 2 would possibly result in serial appeals by the Dietrich Rempels, the motion for a final order under Rule 54(b) is denied.