Bandi v. Becnel (In the Matter of Bandi

Case Type:
Business
Case Status:
Affirmed
Citation:
No. 16-30633 (5th Circuit, Jan 23,2017) Not Published
Tag(s):
Ruling:
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit AFFIRMED the decision of the district court. "To the extent that the Bandis have now shifted the focus of their argument to a due process challenge stemming from a purported filing error by the Clerk of the Fifth Circuit, they have raised that argument for the first time on appeal and have cited no case in support of that argument. Accordingly, it is waived. There must be an end to litigation at some point. We have reached that point."
Procedural context:
The Debtors, the Bandis lost a dischargability adversary. They lost on appeal to the District Court and subsequently before the Fifth Circuit. The Bandis sought a panel rehearing and a rehearing en banc. While these motions were pending before Circuit Court, the Bandis filed a motion with the bankruptcy court for an indicative ruling pursuant to Rule 62.1,1 seeking a “statement, included with the reasons why, that the issue raised [in the motion] is substantial or not.” After the bankruptcy court denied this motion, the Bandis filed a motion for writ with Circuit Court to compel the bankruptcy court to hold a hearing on the motion for an indicative ruling and to issue “Orders and Reasons.” The Circuit Court denied the Bandis’ petitions for a panel rehearing and a rehearing en banc, and the Clerk for the Fifth Circuit advised the Bandis that, because “there [was] no further relief available,” the court would take no action on the motion for writ. Over two years later, the Bandis moved to compel the Circuit Court to resolve the motion for writ, and the Clerk for the Fifth Circuit again advised the Bandis that the court would take no action. Nevertheless, the Bandis filed a motion to reopen the case, arguing that the motion for writ was actually a notice of appeal. The court denied the motion to reopen. The Bandis then moved to reopen the case in bankruptcy court, again arguing that the motion for writ was actually a notice of appeal requiring resolution. Shortly after filing this motion, the Bandis filed an independent action in equity for relief from judgment with the bankruptcy court, requesting a new trial, along with four motions for summary judgment and a motion to disqualify. The bankruptcy court denied the motion to reopen, dismissed the complaint, and dismissed the other motions as moot. After the district court affirmed, the Bandis appealed.
Facts:
After Stephen and Charles Bandi (the Bandis) filed voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy petitions, Christopher Becnel sued the Bandis in bankruptcy court to prevent the Bandis from discharging a debt owed to Becnel. The bankruptcy court determined that 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(2)(A) rendered the debt non- dischargeable. The Bandis appealed this determination to the Eastern District of Louisiana, and, subsequently, the Fifth Circuit, both of which affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision. The Bandis then sought a panel rehearing and a rehearing en banc. While these motions were pending before the Fifth Circuit, the Bandis filed a motion with the bankruptcy court for an indicative ruling pursuant to Rule 62.1,1 seeking a “statement, included with the reasons why, that the issue raised [in the motion] is substantial or not.” After the bankruptcy court denied this motion, the Bandis filed a motion for writ with the Fifth Circuit to compel the bankruptcy court to hold a hearing on the motion for an indicative ruling and to issue “Orders and Reasons.” The Fifth Circuit denied the Bandis’ petitions for a panel rehearing and a rehearing en banc, and the Clerk for the Fifth Circuit advised the Bandis that, because “there [was] no further relief available,” the court would take no action on the motion for writ. Over two years later, the Bandis moved to compel the Fifth Circuit to resolve the motion for writ, and the Clerk for the Fifth Circuit again advised the Bandis that the court would take no action. Nevertheless, the Bandis filed a motion to reopen the case, arguing that the motion for writ was actually a notice of appeal. The court denied the motion to reopen. The Bandis then moved to reopen the case in bankruptcy court, again arguing that the motion for writ was actually a notice of appeal requiring resolution. Shortly after filing this motion, the Bandis filed an independent action in equity for relief from judgment with the bankruptcy court, requesting a new trial, along with four motions for summary judgment and a motion to disqualify. The bankruptcy court denied the motion to reopen, dismissed the complaint, and dismissed the other motions as moot. After the district court affirmed, the Bandis appealed.
Judge(s):
REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD

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!

About us in numbers

3201 in the system

3081 Summarized

1 Being Processed