Ed Schory & Sons, Inc. v. Francis

Sixth Circuit

Ed Schory & Sons, Inc. v. Francis

69 F. App'x 766, 297 B.R. 766

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedJuly 31, 2003

DocketNo. 02-3288

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 69 F. App'x 766 (Ed Schory & Sons, Inc. v. Francis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ed Schory & Sons, Inc. v. Francis, 69 F. App'x 766, 297 B.R. 766 (6th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Ed Schory & Sons, Inc. (“Schory”) argues that the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel erred in affirming the bankruptcy court’s confirmation of the Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan proposed by the debtor Frank Francis (“Francis”). Schory argues that Francis’s plan was not offered in “good faith” under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(3). Having had the benefit of oral argument and having carefully considered the record on appeal, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we are persuaded that the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel was correct in affirming the bankruptcy court’s decision. Because the reasoning which supports the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s decision has been articulated in that court’s opinion, see Ed Schory & Sons. Inc. v. Francis (In re Francis), 273 B.R. 87 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2002), the issuance of a further detailed written opinion by this court would be duplicative and serve no useful .purpose. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed upon the reasoning employed by the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel in its opinion dated February 7, 2002.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Ed Schory & Sons, Inc. (“Schory”) argues that the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel erred in affirming the bankruptcy court’s confirmation of the Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan proposed by the debtor Frank Francis (“Francis”). Schory argues that Francis’s plan was not offered in “good faith” under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(3). Having had the benefit of oral argument and having carefully considered the record on appeal, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we are persuaded that the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel was correct in affirming the bankruptcy court’s decision. Because the reasoning which supports the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel’s decision has been articulated in that court’s opinion, see Ed Schory & Sons. Inc. v. Francis (In re Francis), 273 B.R. 87 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2002), the issuance of a further detailed written opinion by this court would be duplicative and serve no useful .purpose. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed upon the reasoning employed by the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel in its opinion dated February 7, 2002.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 F. App'x 766, 297 B.R. 766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ed-schory-sons-inc-v-francis-ca6-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack