296 F. App'x 399
5th Cir.
2008

Donal McLean SNYDER, III; Donal McLean Snyder, Jr.; Pam Snyder, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 07-60671.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Oct. 16, 2008.

399

support its judgment; fifth, and finally, that the amount of the judgment was too high because the Trustee was able to recover the original annuity premium plus the interest paid by AIG before the funds were paid into the court.

“We review the bankruptcy court‘s decision under the same standards as the district court: conclusions of law and mixed questions of fact and law are reviewed de novo, while findings of fact are reviewed for clear error.” In re McLain, 516 F.3d 301, 307 (5th Cir.2008).

The district court found no merit to the Bossarts’ issues. It held that the Trustee had not sought to recover the annuity itself but claimed the funds the Bossarts had paid as a premium to AIG in order to purchase the annuity. The court found that the action was a Section 548 fraudulent transfer proceeding, not an interpleader proceeding.

The court further held that the Trustee‘s earlier failure to object to the exemption of the annuity did not estop him from making the fraudulent transfer claim. The court found the estoppel theory to be unsupported by caselaw. Moreover, the court held that at the time of filing bankruptcy, the Bossarts concealed the origin of some of the funds used to purchase the annuity. That concealment meant there was no factual basis for an estoppel argument.

The district court found that the bankruptcy court‘s findings of fact and conclusions of law were sufficient to meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52.

Finally, the Bossarts argue that the Trustee was paid too much. The premium for the annuity was about $108,000 in March 2005, but almost $130,000 was in the registry of the court by the time of the bankruptcy court‘s December 2007 order to pay the money to the Trustee. The district court held that the amount of the judgment was correct, as the Trustee had requested recovery of the funds used to purchase the annuity “plus interest.” The district court found no evidence to dispute that the then-current amount was the original payment plus accumulated interest. The bankruptcy estate includes “[p]roceeds . . . of or from the property of the estate.” 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(6). The interest would be proceeds of the property.

We find no error in the district court‘s resolution of the same issues that are brought before us. The judgment is AFFIRMED.

William Lee Guice, III, Rushing & Guice, Ocean Springs, MS, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Adam Bain, Stephen R. Graben, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney‘s Office, Southern District of Mississippi, Gulfport, MS, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Snyder family appeals the district court‘s dismissal for want of subject matter jurisdiction of their lawsuit against the United States. Premising jurisdiction on the Federal Tort Claims Act, the Snyders brought various tort claims against the United States based upon its alleged misconduct in disposing of waste at a Marine Corps base in the early 1970s. 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b) (2006) We have carefully reviewed the parties’ briefs and the pertinent portions of the record. The district judge entered a thorough and thoughtful opinion styled as an Order and Reasons Dismissing Case for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Essentially for the reasons stated by the district court, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Notes

*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.