In Re Donald MacNeil in Re Sharlee MacNeil Debtors. American State Bank Cit Financial Services, Inc. v. Thomas G. Marks

Ninth Circuit

In Re Donald MacNeil in Re Sharlee MacNeil Debtors. American State Bank Cit Financial Services, Inc. v. Thomas G. Marks

907 F.2d 903, 23 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 513, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 10994, 1990 WL 90332

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 3, 1990

Docket89-35620

StatusPublished

Cited by23 cases

This text of 907 F.2d 903 (In Re Donald MacNeil in Re Sharlee MacNeil Debtors. American State Bank Cit Financial Services, Inc. v. Thomas G. Marks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Donald MacNeil in Re Sharlee MacNeil Debtors. American State Bank Cit Financial Services, Inc. v. Thomas G. Marks, 907 F.2d 903, 23 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 513, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 10994, 1990 WL 90332 (9th Cir. 1990).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM:

On August 11, 1989 the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit (“BAP”) affirmed a decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Oregon (“Bankruptcy Court”) holding that under 11 U.S.C. § 726(b), Chapter 7 administrative expenses are entitled to priority over Chapter 11 claims granted superpriority status under 11 U.S.C. § 507(b). American State Bank v. Marks (In re MacNeil), 102 B.R. 766, 768 (9th Cir. BAP 1989) (per curiam). In reaching that conclusion, both the Bankruptcy Court and the BAP declined to address the underlying factual dispute whether the claims of secured creditors American State Bank (“ASB”) and CIT Financial Services (“CIT”) were entitled to section 507(b) superpriority.

Had the Bankruptcy Court determined that neither ASB nor CIT were entitled to superpriority for the above claims we would not now be asked to resolve the legal question whether such a superpriority is subordinate to Chapter 7 administrative claims. In the absence of such a factual determination, any expression by this court concerning the hierarchy of these claims would constitute the rendering of an advisory opinion, i.e., “an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.” Vieux v. East Bay Regional Park Dist., 893 F.2d 1558, 1573 (9th Cir.1990), quoting Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 241, 57 S.Ct. 461, 464, 81 L.Ed. 617 (1937). We are not empowered to issue advisory opinions. See North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246, 92 S.Ct. 402, 404, 30 L.Ed.2d 413 (1971) (per curiam).

Accordingly, the decision of the BAP is VACATED and this matter is REMANDED to the Bankruptcy Court for a factual determination whether the claims of ASB and CIT are entitled to superpriority under section 507(b).

VACATED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

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

PER CURIAM:

On August 11, 1989 the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit (“BAP”) affirmed a decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Oregon (“Bankruptcy Court”) holding that under 11 U.S.C. § 726(b), Chapter 7 administrative expenses are entitled to priority over Chapter 11 claims granted superpriority status under 11 U.S.C. § 507(b). American State Bank v. Marks (In re MacNeil), 102 B.R. 766, 768 (9th Cir. BAP 1989) (per curiam). In reaching that conclusion, both the Bankruptcy Court and the BAP declined to address the underlying factual dispute whether the claims of secured creditors American State Bank (“ASB”) and CIT Financial Services (“CIT”) were entitled to section 507(b) superpriority.

Had the Bankruptcy Court determined that neither ASB nor CIT were entitled to superpriority for the above claims we would not now be asked to resolve the legal question whether such a superpriority is subordinate to Chapter 7 administrative claims. In the absence of such a factual determination, any expression by this court concerning the hierarchy of these claims would constitute the rendering of an advisory opinion, i.e., “an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.” Vieux v. East Bay Regional Park Dist., 893 F.2d 1558, 1573 (9th Cir.1990), quoting Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227, 241, 57 S.Ct. 461, 464, 81 L.Ed. 617 (1937). We are not empowered to issue advisory opinions. See North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246, 92 S.Ct. 402, 404, 30 L.Ed.2d 413 (1971) (per curiam).

Accordingly, the decision of the BAP is VACATED and this matter is REMANDED to the Bankruptcy Court for a factual determination whether the claims of ASB and CIT are entitled to superpriority under section 507(b).

VACATED and REMANDED for further proceedings.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

907 F.2d 903, 23 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 513, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 10994, 1990 WL 90332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-donald-macneil-in-re-sharlee-macneil-debtors-american-state-bank-cit-ca9-1990.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack