United States v. Herbert E. Reeves, Hitchinrail Duplex Apartments, Etc., Substituted

Good Law
468 F.2d 921
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 10, 197271-3006California133 words

Opinion

Hitchinrail Duplex Apartments appeals from a summary judgment entered against it, quieting title to certain real property in the Small Business Administration (SBA), an agency of the United States. We affirm the summary judgment for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the district court, United States v. Reeves, 349 F.Supp. 1321, 1971 .

Hitchinrail’s assertions that the district court erred in vacating SBA’s default on its counterclaim, and that it was denied notice and opportunity to be heard on SBA’s motion for summary judgment, are without merit. Jefferson v. Asplund, 9 Cir., 1972, 467 F.2d 199 (1972).

Finally, Hitchinrail claims that it was entitled to reimbursement under Alaska Stat. § 29.10.501 , which provides:

This argument also fails. No judgment of foreclosure was set aside by the summary judgment against Hitchinrail.

Affirmed.