Sansu Capital LLC v. Shayona Investment LLC et al
Filing
30
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 24 Motion in Support of the Appointment of a Receiver. Signed by Honorable Robin J. Cauthron on 06/13/18. (wh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
SANSU CAPITAL, L.L.C.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SHAYONA INVESTMENT, L.L.C., and
CENTURY SURETY COMPANY,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CIV-16-1306-C
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that in 2005 it issued a mortgage to Defendant Shayona
Investment, L.L.C., on certain property located in Shawnee, Oklahoma. That property
was the site of a Best Western hotel. In April 2015, the Court issued a judgment in favor
of Defendant Century Surety Company against Defendant Shayona Investment, L.L.C., to
conclude litigation between those two entities. Plaintiff was not a party to that litigation.
Plaintiff now argues that the earlier judgment is inferior to its mortgage. Seeking to
protect its interests, Plaintiff brought the present action to pursue its rights under the
mortgage.
Defendant Century filed a request for appointment of a receiver to resolve the
conflict among the parties related to title, to consolidate any claims related to the title, and
validate the title to the property so that it may be sold. Defendant Century’s Motion
acknowledges that Plaintiff may have a claim to some of the sale proceeds but argues that
appointment of a receiver is the most efficient manner to bring this matter to conclusion.
Plaintiff objects to the appointment of a receiver. According to Plaintiff, it did not
get proper notice of a prior attempted sale by Defendant Century and argues that that sale
should not be finalized as there may be a possibility to generate a larger sale price.
Plaintiff also argues that the additional cost associated with the appointment of a receiver
will diminish any recovery by the parties once the property is sold. Finally, Plaintiff
requests that the receiver’s ability to expend funds to repair or remodel the property be
limited and notes that due to its unfamiliarity with Defendant Century’s proposed receiver
that he be required to serve with bond.
In reply, Defendant Century notes that
appointment of a receiver will permit a sale of the property to occur more quickly than a
foreclosure action, as suggested by Plaintiff. Defendant Century also agrees that both it
and Plaintiff will hold the right to approve any repairs suggested by the receiver.
Defendant Century also notes that the title company has noted there may be other claims
or lien holders who are not yet parties to this action and that appointment of a receiver will
allow addressing any claims of those potentially interested parties. Defendant Century
also notes that it has no objection to allowing the receiver to attempt to complete a new
sale rather than complete the previous sale.
After considering the arguments raised by the parties, the Court finds that
appointment of a receiver is the most efficient means for resolving the matters raised in
this ligation. The objections raised by Plaintiff fail to offer any supportable reason to deny
appointment of the receiver.
At the direction of the Court, Defendant Century has
provided a C.V. for Jordan James. Mr. James has extensive experience acting as a receiver
2
and is well connected to the Tulsa community. Defendant notes that in the clear majority
of these cases, Mr. James served without requirement of a bond. Further, considering the
nature of the appointment here and the expected tasks of the receiver, a bond is superfluous.
Accordingly, Jordan James is appointed as a federal equity receiver of the property. Mr.
James shall manage the property until it is sold. However, before expending funds for
repair of the property, the receiver shall obtain the consent of Plaintiff and Defendant
Century. The receiver shall take the necessary steps to consolidate title in the property,
including the addition of any necessary parties to this litigation, to ensure clear title can be
conveyed at a sale of the property. The receiver shall proceed to sell the property through
public or private sale, and upon closing of the sale of the property remit said sale proceeds
to the Court Clerk for further disposition pursuant to further Orders of this Court. The
receiver shall serve without bond and shall operate at an hourly fee of $185 per hour. This
Court’s prior Order of January 3, 2017 (Dkt. No. 118), approving the sale in Case No.
CIV-13-386-C, will be vacated by separate Order filed in that case.
As set forth more fully herein, Defendant Century Surety Company’s Motion in
Support of the Appointment of a Receiver (Dkt. No. 24) is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of June, 2018.
3
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.
Why Is My Information Online?