Boresek v. United States Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency et al
| F.J. Boresek |
| Christian Bussman, Deana Bussman and United States Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency |
| 6:2012cv02138 |
| November 21, 2012 |
| US District Court for the District of Oregon |
| Eugene (6) Office |
| Ann L. Aiken |
| Real Property: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2410 Quiet Title |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
89
Opinion and Order: Based on the lay and expert testimony in this case, I conclude that Boresek's reliance on a defective preliminary title report was commercially unreasonable, and Boresek's failure to discover the FSA lien was due to ine xcusable negligence. I also conclude that the FSA would be prejudiced by equitable subrogation. As a result, equitable subrogation is inappropriate. The marshalling issue is not ripe for adjudication. Signed on 6/9/2015 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp)
|
|
Filing
47
ORDER: Because the United States has waived sovereign immunity as to Boresek's claim of equitable subrogation, plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 29 is Granted, in part. Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment 27 and 35 are Denied. Within fourteen days, the parties shall contact Charlene Pew at 541-431-4105 with proposed dates for a status conference. Signed on 9/23/2014 by Judge Michael J. McShane. (cp)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Oregon District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
