Meadowfield Apartments, Ltd. v. United States , 261 F. App'x 195 ( 2008 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JANUARY 7, 2008
No. 07-13256 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 05-00412-CV-OC-10-GRJ
MEADOWFIELD APARTMENTS, LTD.,
a Florida limited partnership,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant,
MARY MASSINELLO, ROBERTO MASSA,
ANABAL FRESSE, PAULA ABREU,
REYNALDO FONSECA, WILLIAM RODRIGUEZ,
Intervenors-Defendants-
Appellants.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(January 7, 2008)
Before CARNES, BARKETT and HILL, Circuit Judges.
HILL, Circuit Judge:
Meadowfield Apartments, Ltd. seeks to quiet title to the Meadowfield
Apartments, a low-income housing development, by forcing its mortgagee, the
United States Department of Agriculture, to accept prepayment of its loans.
Intervenors are six individuals, all of whom are tenants of Meadowfield
Apartments. According to intervenors, each of them holds a property interest
under a lease agreement with Meadowfield Apartments, which may be adversely
affected by the prepayment of the mortgage. The district court denied appellant-
intervenors motion to intervene and Intervenors have appealed. See Bhd. of R.R.
Trainmen v. Baltimore & O.R. Co., 331 U.S. 519, 524 (1947) (holding that denial
of a motion to intervene is immediately appealable).
Under Rule 24(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., intervenors must establish the following
requirements in order to intervene in this action: (1) the application to intervene is
timely; (2) intervenors have an interest relating to the property or transaction which
is the subject of the action; (3) intervenors are so situated that disposition of the
action, as a practical matter, may impede or impair their ability to protect that
interest; and (4) their interest is represented inadequately by the existing parties to
the suit. Chiles v. Thornburgh, 865 F.2d 1197, 1213 (11 th Cir. 1989). The district
2
court held that intervenors have failed to establish that they meet these
requirements and we agree.
First, the leaseholders have not demonstrated an adequate interest in the
property that is the subject of this action. We have held that, in order to show such
an interest, the intervenor must be a real party in interest in the transaction such
that he has a direct, substantial, legally protectable interest in the proceedings.
Purcell v. BankAtlantic Financial Corp., 85 F.3d 1508, 1512 (11 th Cir. 1996).
Intervenors in this action do not have such an interest. While leaseholders in
federal low-income housing do have certain statutory rights, no judgment entered
in this action will defeat those rights. Nor would any judgment regarding
prepayment of the loan terminate their interest or rights provided under the current
terms of their leases with Meadowfield Apartments.1 Any suggestion that their
future rights may be impaired is too speculative to support intervention. Since a
judgment in this action would not impede or impair the ability of the intervenors to
protect their rights under their current leases, they have not shown that they have
1
Intervenors reliance upon United States v. Dixwell Housing Corp., 71 F.R.D. 558 (D.
Conn. 1976), is misplaced. In that case, the aim of the action was to divest the owner of its
ownership interest in the property, which likely would have resulted in the tenants’ loss of their
leases. In contrast, the purpose of this action is to cancel the mortgage – through prepayment –
not to cancel the leases or modify the rights of the intervenors under those leases.
3
an interest in these proceedings adequate to permit them to intervene.2
Additionally, intervenors have failed to establish that their rights are not
adequately represented by the United States in this action. Intervenors seek exactly
the same relief as does the United States – a declaration that federal law prevents
prepayment of the loan by Meadowfield. Furthermore, the arguments made by
intervenors and the United States against the prepayment are substantially the
same.
For the foregoing reasons, we agree with the district court that intervenors
have failed to establish the necessary requirements for intervention in this case and
the denial of the motion to intervene is due to be
AFFIRMED.
2
In fact, intervenors have filed a separate action against the Department of Agriculture
and the Rural Housing Authority to protect their rights, demonstrating that those rights are not
impaired by their exclusion from this action.
4