In Re Curtis Reed Johnson, Debtor. Home State Bank of Lewis, Lewis, Kansas, and Cross-Appellant v. Curtis Reed Johnson, and Cross-Appellee

Tenth Circuit

In Re Curtis Reed Johnson, Debtor. Home State Bank of Lewis, Lewis, Kansas, and Cross-Appellant v. Curtis Reed Johnson, and Cross-Appellee

940 F.2d 609, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 18128, 1991 WL 150051

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in In Re Curtis Reed Johnson, Debtor. Home State Bank of Lewis, Lewis, Kansas, and Cross-Appellant v. Curtis Reed Johnson, and Cross-Appellee. Read the opinion of the Court — 904 F.2d 563 →

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit·Decided August 12, 1991·No. 89-3029, 89-3031·Published

Opinion

ORDER ON REMAND

This matter is before us on Remand From the United States Supreme Court. Our opinion is found at 904 F.2d 563 (10th Cir.1990).

We affirmed the district court, holding that as Johnson’s personal liability had been discharged the Bank no longer had a claim against Johnson subject to rescheduling under Chapter 13. The Supreme Court reversed. See Johnson v. Home State Bank, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2150, 115 L.Ed.2d 66 (1991). The judgment of the Supreme Court has now been received. *610 Accordingly, the previous judgment of this court is vacated. The Supreme Court remanded this case concerning the issues of good faith or feasibility. These issues were decided by the bankruptcy court, were raised by the Bank in its appeal from the bankruptcy court to the district court but were not decided by the district court.

This court, following its long established rule that it will not ordinarily decide a matter not addressed by the district court REMANDS this matter to the district court for such further proceedings as may be necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

ORDER ON REMAND

This matter is before us on Remand From the United States Supreme Court. Our opinion is found at 904 F.2d 563 (10th Cir.1990).

We affirmed the district court, holding that as Johnson’s personal liability had been discharged the Bank no longer had a claim against Johnson subject to rescheduling under Chapter 13. The Supreme Court reversed. See Johnson v. Home State Bank, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2150, 115 L.Ed.2d 66 (1991). The judgment of the Supreme Court has now been received. *610 Accordingly, the previous judgment of this court is vacated. The Supreme Court remanded this case concerning the issues of good faith or feasibility. These issues were decided by the bankruptcy court, were raised by the Bank in its appeal from the bankruptcy court to the district court but were not decided by the district court.

This court, following its long established rule that it will not ordinarily decide a matter not addressed by the district court REMANDS this matter to the district court for such further proceedings as may be necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

In Re Curtis Reed Johnson, Debtor. Home State Bank of Lewis, Lewis, Kansas, and Cross-Appellant v. Curtis Reed Johnson, and Cross-Appellee, 940 F.2d 609, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 18128, 1991 WL 150051 (10th Cir. 1991).

Pincite

940 F.2d 609 (In Re Curtis Reed Johnson, Debtor. Home State Bank of Lewis, Lewis, Kansas, and Cross-Appellant v. Curtis Reed Johnson, and Cross-Appellee) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related