Allen Group Partners v. Golden (In re Eisen)

Summarized by Dean Rallis , Hahn & Hahn, LLP
14 years 2 months ago

Citation:

No. 10-55227 / D.C. No. 8:09-cv-00952-TJH (not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3)

Tag(s):

Ruling:

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the California District Court’s order affirming the Bankruptcy Court’s approval of the trustee’s sale of real property free and clear of all liens and interests including a creditor’s asserted equitable interest in the real property, which equitable interest the Bankruptcy Court avoided earlier in a separate adversary proceeding. The Ninth Circuit dismissed the creditor’s appeal of interim fee orders based on a lack of jurisdiction.

Procedural context:

The Bankruptcy Court entered an order approving the trustee’s motion to sell the real property free and clear of all liens and interests, including the creditor’s asserted interests. The Bankruptcy Court, separately, entered various orders approving, on an interim basis, fees of various professionals employed by the trustee. The creditor appealed the orders to the District Court, which affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s rulings, and denied the creditor’s motion for reconsideration. The creditor filed an appeal of the District Court’s orders to the Ninth Circuit.

Facts:

In a separate adversary proceeding, the trustee successfully avoided the creditor’s equitable interests in certain real property. The Bankruptcy Court ruled that the trustee was the “sole owner” of the real property and that the creditor “has no right, title, estate, or interest therein adverse to, superior to, or otherwise as to [the trustee].” Appeals by the creditor of this final judgment were dismissed for failure to prosecute. Subsequently, the trustee filed a motion to approve the sale of the real property free and clear of liens and interests. The creditor objected to the sale on various grounds including its continued insistence that such creditor maintained an equitable interest (or lien) on the subject property, notwithstanding the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling in the earlier adversary proceeding. The Bankruptcy Court overruled the creditor’s objections and approved the sale. In separate matters (but close in time to the Court’s ruling on the sale motion), the Bankruptcy Court also approved various interim fee applications of the trustee’s professionals. The creditor appealed the sale order and interim fee orders to the District Court, which affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s rulings. Based on “principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel,” the Ninth Circuit declined to permit the creditor from collaterally attacking the judgment in the adversary proceeding and affirmed the District Court’s ruling on the sale order. Addressing the appeals on the interim fee orders, the Ninth Circuit determined that such orders were interlocutory and that the creditor failed to seek leave from the Bankruptcy Court to appeal these orders. The Ninth Circuit noted that neither the District Court nor the Ninth Circuit had jurisdiction, and accordingly dismissed the appeal of the interim fee orders.

Judge(s):

LEAVY, WARDLAW, Circuit Judges, and MAHAN, District Judge

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!