In Re. AmRhein

D. Massachusetts

In Re. AmRhein

DecidedMarch 23, 2022

Docket4:21-cv-40079

StatusUnknown

This text of In Re. AmRhein (In Re. AmRhein) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re. AmRhein, (D. Mass. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

__________________________________________ ) In re: ERICH AMRHEIN, ) Civil Action No. 21-40079-GAO Creditor. ) ) ERICH AMRHEIN, ) (Chapter 7 Case No. 16-41070-EDK) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) PETER M. VENUTO, ) Appellee. ) __________________________________________)

OPINION AND ORDER March 23, 2022

O’TOOLE, D.J. Appellant Erich AmRhein appeals from an order by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts granting in part the appellee’s Motion for Order of Contempt and Sanctions. The bankruptcy court held the appellant in contempt for bringing a state court action on a discharged claim in violation of the discharge injunction set forth in 11 U.S.C § 524, and the court set a status hearing for a later date to discuss further proceedings regarding potential sanctions. A district court has jurisdiction to hear appeals from final judgments, orders, and decrees of the bankruptcy court. 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). An order for civil contempt is not considered final for purposes of appeal until (1) a finding of contempt is issued, and (2) an appropriate sanction is imposed. In re U.S. Abatement Corp., 39 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 1994). Specifically, an order of a bankruptcy court finding a party in contempt is not considered final until a sanction has been ordered. In re Behrens, 900 F.2d 97, 101 (7th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, the bankruptcy court’s finding of contempt against the appellant without imposing sanctions is not a final order that can be appealed. See In re Fugazy Exp., Inc., 982 F.2d 769, 776 (2d Cir. 1992) (concluding that finality requires an order of contempt to completely resolve issues concerning proper relief). For the reasons stated herein, the present appeal is DISMISSED for lack of appellate

jurisdiction, and the matter is remanded to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings. It is SO ORDERED. /s/ George A. O’Toole, Jr. United States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

__________________________________________ ) In re: ERICH AMRHEIN, ) Civil Action No. 21-40079-GAO Creditor. ) ) ERICH AMRHEIN, ) (Chapter 7 Case No. 16-41070-EDK) Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) PETER M. VENUTO, ) Appellee. ) __________________________________________)

OPINION AND ORDER March 23, 2022

O’TOOLE, D.J. Appellant Erich AmRhein appeals from an order by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts granting in part the appellee’s Motion for Order of Contempt and Sanctions. The bankruptcy court held the appellant in contempt for bringing a state court action on a discharged claim in violation of the discharge injunction set forth in 11 U.S.C § 524, and the court set a status hearing for a later date to discuss further proceedings regarding potential sanctions. A district court has jurisdiction to hear appeals from final judgments, orders, and decrees of the bankruptcy court. 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). An order for civil contempt is not considered final for purposes of appeal until (1) a finding of contempt is issued, and (2) an appropriate sanction is imposed. In re U.S. Abatement Corp., 39 F.3d 563, 567 (5th Cir. 1994). Specifically, an order of a bankruptcy court finding a party in contempt is not considered final until a sanction has been ordered. In re Behrens, 900 F.2d 97, 101 (7th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, the bankruptcy court’s finding of contempt against the appellant without imposing sanctions is not a final order that can be appealed. See In re Fugazy Exp., Inc., 982 F.2d 769, 776 (2d Cir. 1992) (concluding that finality requires an order of contempt to completely resolve issues concerning proper relief). For the reasons stated herein, the present appeal is DISMISSED for lack of appellate

jurisdiction, and the matter is remanded to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings. It is SO ORDERED. /s/ George A. O’Toole, Jr. United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

In Re. AmRhein, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-amrhein-mad-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack