Cedar Rapids Bank & Trust Co. v. Mako One Corp., No. 18-1298 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
After Mako acquired a historic building with intentions to restore it using state and federal historic tax credits, it retained the law firm of Winthrop & Weinstine to draft the tax credit bond. CRBT then retained Winthrop to represent it in connection with the building tax credit project. CRBT, through counsel Winthrop, later sought to foreclose on the building. Mako retained separate counsel and moved to dismiss the complaint and to disqualify Winthrop. The district court denied both of Mako's motions and awarded $5.2 million to CRBT.
The Eighth Circuit held that the district court did not err by denying Mako's motion to dismiss the action for failure to join Chevron as a necessary party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19(a)(1); the district court did not err in calculating the money judgment; and, although the district court erred in failing to disqualify Winthrop as counsel for CRBT, the error was harmless. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment for money damages; reversed the district court's denial to disqualify counsel in any future proceedings; and, as proceedings continue and the Winthrop law firm has a conflict of interest necessitating removal as counsel, remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Erickson, Author, with Benton and Beam, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Contracts. The district court properly denied defendant's motion to join a party, as the party sought to be joined was not necessary to determine the existing parties' rights under the contract; damage award affirmed; the district court erred in denying defendant's motion to disqualify plaintiff's counsel as the law firm did not obtain informed consent and defendant did not validly waive the conflict of interest in the matter; however, the error was harmless as defendant makes no credible claim that the outcome in the case was in any way influenced by the conflicted representation; as proceedings continue in the case below and the law firm has a conflict of interest necessitating removal, the matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.