Henderson v. Van Buren Industrial Investors, L.L.C.

Eleventh Circuit

Henderson v. Van Buren Industrial Investors, L.L.C.

143 F. App'x 292

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedSeptember 12, 2005

Docket05-12464; D.C. Docket 03-00537-CV-FTM-33-SPC and 02-16887-9P1

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 143 F. App'x 292 (Henderson v. Van Buren Industrial Investors, L.L.C.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Henderson v. Van Buren Industrial Investors, L.L.C., 143 F. App'x 292 (11th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

DCT Incorporated, an automotive sub-component supplier, entered into a ten year lease with the appellee, Van Burén Industrial Investors, L.L.C. (“Van Bu-rén”), for a 345,000 square foot industrial building located in metropolitan Detroit, effective December 1, 1999. The debt- or/appellant, James Bronce Henderson, III, was DCT’s principal officer and guaranteed DCT’s obligations under the lease. In February 2002, DCT’s creditors placed the company in involuntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and DCT stopped paying rent for the building. In August 2002, Henderson filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Subsequently, Van Burén filed a claim (Claim No. 71) in Henderson’s bankruptcy proceedings for unpaid rent and other charges due under the lease as guarantor. The bankruptcy court allowed Van Buren’s claim, but applied the one year cap under 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(6). The district court then affirmed. Henderson appeals, and we also affirm.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). “[W]e independently examine the factual and legal determinations of the bankruptcy court and employ the same standards of review as the district court.” In re Int’l Admin. Servs., Inc., 408 F.3d 689, 698 (11th Cir.2005). Specifically, we review the district court’s and bankruptcy court’s factual findings for clear error, In re Cox, 338 F.3d 1238, 1241 (11th Cir.2003), and the legal conclusions de novo. In re Int’l Admin. Servs., Inc., 408 F.3d at 698.

After an evidentiary hearing, the bankruptcy court concluded that Henderson’s objections lacked merit and correctly found that: Henderson is bound by the plain terms of the lease and is liable to Van Burén as guarantor; the amount of rent specified in the lease provided evidence of the fair market value for the building space; Van Burén satisfied its duty to mitigate its damages caused by the breach; and judicial estoppel does not apply. Upon review, the district court agreed with these findings. We too have reviewed the record and find no clear error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, which affirms the judgment of the bankruptcy court.

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

DCT Incorporated, an automotive sub-component supplier, entered into a ten year lease with the appellee, Van Burén Industrial Investors, L.L.C. (“Van Bu-rén”), for a 345,000 square foot industrial building located in metropolitan Detroit, effective December 1, 1999. The debt- or/appellant, James Bronce Henderson, III, was DCT’s principal officer and guaranteed DCT’s obligations under the lease. In February 2002, DCT’s creditors placed the company in involuntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and DCT stopped paying rent for the building. In August 2002, Henderson filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Subsequently, Van Burén filed a claim (Claim No. 71) in Henderson’s bankruptcy proceedings for unpaid rent and other charges due under the lease as guarantor. The bankruptcy court allowed Van Buren’s claim, but applied the one year cap under 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(6). The district court then affirmed. Henderson appeals, and we also affirm.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). “[W]e independently examine the factual and legal determinations of the bankruptcy court and employ the same standards of review as the district court.” In re Int’l Admin. Servs., Inc., 408 F.3d 689, 698 (11th Cir.2005). Specifically, we review the district court’s and bankruptcy court’s factual findings for clear error, In re Cox, 338 F.3d 1238, 1241 (11th Cir.2003), and the legal conclusions de novo. In re Int’l Admin. Servs., Inc., 408 F.3d at 698.

After an evidentiary hearing, the bankruptcy court concluded that Henderson’s objections lacked merit and correctly found that: Henderson is bound by the plain terms of the lease and is liable to Van Burén as guarantor; the amount of rent specified in the lease provided evidence of the fair market value for the building space; Van Burén satisfied its duty to mitigate its damages caused by the breach; and judicial estoppel does not apply. Upon review, the district court agreed with these findings. We too have reviewed the record and find no clear error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, which affirms the judgment of the bankruptcy court.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

143 F. App'x 292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henderson-v-van-buren-industrial-investors-llc-ca11-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack