420 F. App'x 788
10th Cir.2011Background
- George Love and related farming entities filed Chapter 11 in Utah; Barnes Banking was a creditor in that case.
- A Chapter 11 plan consolidated Love entities; Barnes held a lien on crops and required a lien waiver to obtain an FSA loan.
- FSA loan was sought to fund plan payments; Barnes refused to sign lien waiver, causing FSA to refuse the loan.
- Love later filed Chapter 7 for George Love Farming, LC; the Chapter 7 estate was described as the alter ego of the consolidated Chapter 11 estate.
- Love, Valayne Love, George Love Farming, LC, and Snowville sued Barnes in Utah state court; Barnes removed the action to bankruptcy court and prevailed on summary judgment; BAP affirmed.
- This appeal is by Love, Valayne Love, George Love Farming, LC, and Snowville; the court lacks jurisdiction over some appellants and affirms the summary judgment against George Love.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over remaining appeals | Appellants seek review despite FDIC status blocking some claims. | Only George Love fits § 158(d)(1)/1291 jurisdiction; others lack jurisdiction due to FDIC process. | We lack jurisdiction over Valayne Love, Snowville, and George Love Farming, LC. |
| Whether state-law claims were core proceedings | State action implicated plan, estate, and administration claims. | State-law claims were not core proceedings. | State-law claims were core proceedings under §157(b)(2)(A),(O). |
| Mandatory abstention | Abstention required due to state-law nature and related-to jurisdiction. | Core status forecloses abstention. | Abstention not required because action was core. |
| Summary judgment on checks and estate funds | Bank's failure to honor post-petition checks violated duties. | Estate funds were controlled by automatic stay; no duty to disburse. | Claims regarding post-petition checks properly dismissed; no duties under §362(a). |
Key Cases Cited
- Mustang Partners, 946 F.2d 103 (10th Cir. 1991) (mandatory administrative claims process for FDIC receivership)
- In re Gardner, 913 F.2d 1515 (10th Cir. 1990) (related-to jurisdiction test in bankruptcy cases)
- Midgard Corp., 204 B.R. 764 (Bankr. D. Utah 1997) (six elements for mandatory abstention)
- Intercontinental Travel Mktg., Inc. v. FDIC, 45 F.3d 1278 (9th Cir. 1994) (related-to jurisdiction consistency across circuits)
- Brady Dev. Co., Inc. v. Resolution Trust Corp., 14 F.3d 998 (4th Cir. 1994) (jurisdictional and abstention principles in RTC/FDIC context)
- Bueford v. Resolution Trust Corp., 991 F.2d 481 (8th Cir. 1993) (FDIC receivership and claims processing)
- Marquis v. FDIC, 965 F.2d 1148 (1st Cir. 1992) (administrative process prerequisite for claims)
- Whatley v. Resolution Trust Corp., 32 F.3d 905 (5th Cir. 1994) (abstention and related-to considerations)
- Jones v. Bank of Santa Fe (In re Courtesy Inns, Ltd.), 40 F.3d 1084 (10th Cir. 1994) (jurisdictional review standard in bankruptcy)