Barney v. Lane

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: April 10, 2025
• Docket: 24-8025
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 24-8025 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 04/10/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT April 10, 2025 _________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court In re: ROBERT LANE,

Debtor.

---------------------------------

GARY BARNEY; RANDY ROYAL; JOHN C. SMILEY; MICHAEL T. GILBERT; DENNIS O'MALLEY; BALLARD SPAHR, LLP; COLLEEN LANE; PATRICIA E. LANE; MATTHEW W. LANE; SCOTT W. MEIER; LUCAS BUCKLEY; HATHAWAY AND KUNZ PC; BANK OF JACKSON HOLE; DAVID PERINO; ESTATE OF ROBERT BIOLCHINI; PETE LAWTON; CHARLES HINGLE; HOLLAND & HART LLP; TIMOTHY J LANE,

Plaintiffs - Appellees,

v. No. 24-8025 (D.C. No. 1:23-CV-00011-SWS) ROBERT M. LANE, (D. Wyo.)

Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. Appellate Case: 24-8025 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 04/10/2025 Page: 2

_________________________________

Before HARTZ, KELLY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. _________________________________

Robert Lane filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in the District of Wyoming

in 2011. In the following years, settlement agreements were entered with Mr. Lane’s

creditors. While the bankruptcy proceedings were ongoing, Mr. Lane began filing

lawsuits (first under his own name and later under the names of surrogate plaintiffs)

against his creditors, his ex-wife, his children, and others involved in the bankruptcy

case. Between November 2013 and August 2020, Mr. Lane caused 11 lawsuits

related to the bankruptcy case to be filed in state or federal courts in jurisdictions

across the country. He was repeatedly sanctioned, found in contempt, and had filing

restrictions imposed on him for engaging in frivolous and vexatious litigation.

Mr. Lane was also sentenced to a term of imprisonment after he pleaded guilty to

falsifying records in the bankruptcy case.

Appellees eventually moved to reopen the bankruptcy case, seeking a

permanent injunction barring Mr. Lane from filing further lawsuits related to the

settlement agreements and other matters that the bankruptcy court had previously

adjudicated. Appellees also sought a declaratory judgment that prior settlement

agreements and the bankruptcy court’s orders remained valid. After holding a bench

trial, the bankruptcy court issued a 93-page decision in which it made detailed factual

findings and legal conclusions. The bankruptcy court permanently enjoined

Mr. Lane “from initiating or prosecuting litigation or any other adversarial action

2 Appellate Case: 24-8025 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 04/10/2025 Page: 3

against any of the [Appellees]” based on facts and issues previously decided in the

bankruptcy case or the adversary proceeding. R. vol. I at 121. It also entered a

declaratory judgment stating that the bankruptcy settlement agreements “are valid

and enforceable” and that the corresponding settlement orders “remain in full force

and effect.” Id. at 123. On appeal the district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s

rulings. Mr. Lane appeals and we affirm.

“Even though this appeal comes to us from the district court, we review a

bankruptcy court’s decisions independently, examining legal determinations de novo

and factual findings for clear error.” FB Acquisition Prop. I, LLC v. Gentry (In re

Gentry), 807 F.3d 1222, 1225 (10th Cir. 2015).

On appeal Mr. Lane simply restates positions and arguments he took in the

district court. He does not engage with the bankruptcy court’s reasoning to explain

how the court erred in granting a permanent injunction and entering a declaratory

judgment. And his briefs merely repeat positions rejected by the district court,

without presenting any error in its reasoning. See Nixon v. City and Cnty. of Denver,

784 F.3d 1364, 1366 (10th Cir. 2015) (“The first task of an appellant is to explain to

us why the district court’s decision was wrong.”).

Having carefully reviewed the briefs, the record, and the applicable law, we

conclude that Mr. Lane has failed to show that the bankruptcy court erred. We

3 Appellate Case: 24-8025 Document: 53-1 Date Filed: 04/10/2025 Page: 4

therefore affirm the district court’s judgment for substantially the same reasons stated

in its thorough and well-reasoned order.

Entered for the Court

Harris L Hartz Circuit Judge