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

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedAugust 12, 1991

Docket89-3029, 89-3031

StatusPublished

This text of 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) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

940 F.2d 609, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 18128, 1991 WL 150051, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-curtis-reed-johnson-debtor-home-state-bank-of-lewis-lewis-kansas-ca10-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack