Lankford v. Wagner, 853 F.3d 1119

David and Lee Ann Lankford invested in a Ponzi scheme (Vaughan Company Realtors) and received net gains; the chapter 11 trustee, Judith Wagner, brought clawback/adversary proceedings to recover fictitious profits.
Bankruptcy court entered summary judgment against the Lankfords for amounts the trustee sought; the Lankfords moved to vacate under Rule 60(b)(3) alleging trustee fraud; that motion was denied.
The Lankfords did not appeal the bankruptcy court’s summary judgment or the denials of leave to file counterclaims under Barton; they appealed only the denial of the Rule 60(b) motion to the district court and lost.
Instead of further appeals within the bankruptcy appellate path, the Lankfords filed a separate suit in district court against the trustee and her counsel alleging fraud, extortion, and criminal violations arising from the adversary proceeding.
The magistrate judge and district court concluded the Barton doctrine bars such suits absent leave of the appointing bankruptcy court, dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Barton bars suit against a bankruptcy trustee for alleged misconduct in administering the estate	Lankford: claims based on trustee’s alleged fraud and criminal acts can be litigated in district court	Trustee: Barton requires leave of appointing bankruptcy court before suing trustee; Lankfords didn’t obtain leave	Barton bars the suit; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction affirmed
Whether Barton’s protection extends to trustee’s counsel	Lankford: counsel can be sued separately for alleged wrongdoing	Trustee/counsel: counsel acting under trustee’s direction is functionally equivalent to trustee and covered by Barton	Barton extends to trustee’s counsel acting as functional equivalent; suit barred without leave
Whether an exception (e.g., ultra vires or tort) allows suit despite Barton	Lankford: alleged fraud and criminal conduct fall outside Barton’s bar	Defendants: no applicable exception; ultra vires exception limited and not shown	No exception applies here; Lankfords did not show wrongful seizure or similar ultra vires conduct
Whether the Lankfords may collaterally attack bankruptcy judgments via a new federal suit	Lankford: the separate lawsuit is an appropriate vehicle to challenge trustee’s actions and bankruptcy rulings	Defendants: collateral attack is improper; appellate avenues were available but not pursued	Collateral attack disallowed; procedural default and Barton bar prevent circumventing appeal rules

Barton v. Barbour, 104 U.S. 126 (holds leave of appointing court is required before suing a receiver)
Satterfield v. Malloy, 700 F.3d 1231 (10th Cir. 2012) (extends Barton to bankruptcy trustees; doctrine is jurisdictional)
McDaniel v. Blust, 668 F.3d 153 (4th Cir. 2012) (applies Barton protections to trustee’s counsel acting under trustee)
Lawrence v. Goldberg, 573 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2009) (endorses Barton extension to trustee’s attorneys)
In re DeLorean Motor Co., 991 F.2d 1236 (6th Cir. 1993) (reasoning that leave requirement must include trustee’s counsel to prevent circumvention)