Francis Tucker v. Ohio Valley Amusement Company

487 F. App'x 826
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedNovember 14, 2012
Docket11-2341
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 487 F. App'x 826 (Francis Tucker v. Ohio Valley Amusement Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Francis Tucker v. Ohio Valley Amusement Company, 487 F. App'x 826 (4th Cir. 2012).

Opinion

*827 Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Petitioning creditors-appellees, Ohio Valley Amusement Company, Alexas In-tertainment, LLC, and Al Hart, filed an involuntary bankruptcy action under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code (“the Code”) pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 303 against debtor-appellant Francis C. Tucker on April 27, 2009, in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. After Tucker filed an answer and two unsuccessful motions to dismiss, the bankruptcy court held a trial on the contested petition. At the conclusion of the trial, the bankruptcy court found that the petitioning creditors had satisfied their burden under 11 U.S.C. § 303(b)(1), having established that each of the three creditors held qualified claims that were not contingent, not the subject of a bona fide dispute, and entailed values that, in the aggregate, satisfied the statutory threshold. The bankruptcy court further found that the petitioning creditors satisfied their burden under 11 U.S.C. § 303(h)(1) to establish that Tucker was generally not paying his debts as they became due. Accordingly, on November 22, 2010, the bankruptcy court entered an Order for Relief on the petition.

Tucker filed a timely appeal of the bankruptcy court’s order to the district court. On October 31, 2011, the district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s Order for Relief. Tucker noted a timely appeal to this Court on November 29, 2011.

After the ease was calendared for oral argument, the parties moved to submit the appeal on the briefs and we granted the motion. Having carefully reviewed the briefs, record and applicable law, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in its thorough opinion. See In Re: Francis Clifford Tucker, 2011 WL 5192801 (N.D.W.Va. Oct.31, 2011).

AFFIRMED.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
487 F. App'x 826, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/francis-tucker-v-ohio-valley-amusement-company-ca4-2012.