In Re Emerald Oil Company, Debtor. William C. Sandoz, Trustee in Chapter 11 v. Crain Brothers, Inc.

Fifth Circuit

In Re Emerald Oil Company, Debtor. William C. Sandoz, Trustee in Chapter 11 v. Crain Brothers, Inc.

694 F.2d 88, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 23150, 9 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 1352

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 20, 1982

Docket82-3070

StatusPublished

Cited by29 cases

This text of 694 F.2d 88 (In Re Emerald Oil Company, Debtor. William C. Sandoz, Trustee in Chapter 11 v. Crain Brothers, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Emerald Oil Company, Debtor. William C. Sandoz, Trustee in Chapter 11 v. Crain Brothers, Inc., 694 F.2d 88, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 23150, 9 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 1352 (5th Cir. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

We dismiss this appeal because the judgment appealed from is not final and appeal-able. In this bankruptcy case, the defendant-creditor Crain Brothers, Inc. (Crain) seeks to appeal an interlocutory order: the district court’s reversal of the bankruptcy court’s grant of summary judgment in Crain’s favor. The trustee in bankruptcy of the estate of Crain’s former debtor, Emerald Oil Company (Emerald), had sued Crain for the return to the estate the amount of $50,485.70 in payment for Crain’s services that Emerald alleged was a preferential transfer voidable by the trustee under section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code of 1978,11 U.S.C. § 547. The bankruptcy court entered summary judgment dismissing Emerald’s claim because the transfer was not made within ninety days of the filing of the petition of bankruptcy, a prerequisite to voidability, and fell within the “transfers made in the ordinary course of business exception” to section 547. On Emerald’s appeal, the district court reversed the ruling of the bankruptcy court.

The district court’s reversal is not an appealable “final judgment, order, or decree”, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1293(a)(b) (1978), see Matter of Kutner, 656 F.2d 1107, 1111 (5th Cir.1981); 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291,1334 (1978), for there was no final determination of the rights of the parties to secure the relief they seek in this suit. Further, there was no section 1292(b), 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), certification and neither court directed entry of a final judgment by a Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) order as to the issues they had decided. The case thus awaits further proceedings in the bankruptcy and district courts before there is an appealable final judgment. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal of an interlocutory order for lack of jurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

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

PER CURIAM:

We dismiss this appeal because the judgment appealed from is not final and appeal-able. In this bankruptcy case, the defendant-creditor Crain Brothers, Inc. (Crain) seeks to appeal an interlocutory order: the district court’s reversal of the bankruptcy court’s grant of summary judgment in Crain’s favor. The trustee in bankruptcy of the estate of Crain’s former debtor, Emerald Oil Company (Emerald), had sued Crain for the return to the estate the amount of $50,485.70 in payment for Crain’s services that Emerald alleged was a preferential transfer voidable by the trustee under section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code of 1978,11 U.S.C. § 547. The bankruptcy court entered summary judgment dismissing Emerald’s claim because the transfer was not made within ninety days of the filing of the petition of bankruptcy, a prerequisite to voidability, and fell within the “transfers made in the ordinary course of business exception” to section 547. On Emerald’s appeal, the district court reversed the ruling of the bankruptcy court.

The district court’s reversal is not an appealable “final judgment, order, or decree”, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1293(a)(b) (1978), see Matter of Kutner, 656 F.2d 1107, 1111 (5th Cir.1981); 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291,1334 (1978), for there was no final determination of the rights of the parties to secure the relief they seek in this suit. Further, there was no section 1292(b), 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), certification and neither court directed entry of a final judgment by a Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) order as to the issues they had decided. The case thus awaits further proceedings in the bankruptcy and district courts before there is an appealable final judgment. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal of an interlocutory order for lack of jurisdiction.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

In the Matter of Texas Extrusion Corp., Debtor. Texas Extrusion Corp. v. Lockheed Corp., and Lockheed Finance Corp., in the Matter of Richard W. Pickens, Debtor. Richard W. Pickens, D/B/A Gold Sun Aluminum, Inc., Plaintiffs v. Lockheed Corp., Daniel C. Stewart, Trustee of Texas Extrusion Corp. & Disbursing Agent, the Official Creditors Committee of Texas Extrusion Corp., Lockheed Finance Corp., and Lockheed California Co., Defendants- in the Matter of Pickens Industries, Inc., Debtor. Pickens Industries, Inc. v. Lockheed Corporation, in the Matter of Louise Pickens, Debtor. Louise Pickens D/B/A Gold Sun Aluminum, Inc. v. Lockheed Corporation

844 F.2d 1142 (Fifth Circuit, 1988)

Texas Extrusion Corp. v. Lockheed Corp. (In re Texas Extrusion Corp.)

844 F.2d 1142 (Fifth Circuit, 1988)

Louisiana World Exposition, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co. (In re Louisiana World Exposition, Inc.)

832 F.2d 1391 (Fifth Circuit, 1987)

17 Collier bankr.cas.2d 1291, Bankr. L. Rep. P 72,124 in Re Louisiana World Exposition, Inc., and Contractor Creditors' Committee, Louisiana World Exposition, Inc., and Contractor Creditors' Committee v. Federal Insurance Co., John A. Alario, Jr.

832 F.2d 1391 (Fifth Circuit, 1987)

Smith v. Lanes

825 F.2d 81 (Fifth Circuit, 1987)

Moody v. Seaside Lanes

825 F.2d 81 (Fifth Circuit, 1987)

Allegheny International Credit Corp. v. Bowman

821 F.2d 245 (Fifth Circuit, 1987)

In Re Bowman

821 F.2d 245 (Fifth Circuit, 1987)

T & B Scottdale Contractors, Inc. v. United States

815 F.2d 1425 (Eleventh Circuit, 1987)

T & B Scottdale Contractors, Inc., Cross-Appellee v. United States of America, Trust Company Bank, Intervenor-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, Richard D. Ellenberg, Trustee in Bankruptcy of Rodger & Rodger, Inc., Intervenor-Appellee. In Re Rodger & Rodger, Inc., Debtor. United States of America v. Rodger & Rodger, Inc.

815 F.2d 1425 (Eleventh Circuit, 1987)

15 Collier bankr.cas.2d 683, Bankr. L. Rep. P 71,461 in Re Ralph J. Moens and Mary Lou Moens, Debtors. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., as Receiver of the Atkinson Trust & Savings Bank, and United States of America, Intervenor v. Ralph J. Moens and Mary Lou Moens, and Appeal of United States of America, Intervenor

800 F.2d 173 (Seventh Circuit, 1986)

Moens v. Moens

800 F.2d 173 (Seventh Circuit, 1986)

County Management, Inc. v. Kriegel

788 F.2d 311 (Fifth Circuit, 1986)

14 Collier bankr.cas.2d 1292, Bankr. L. Rep. P 71,131 in Re County Management, Inc., Debtor. County Management, Inc. And Pampell Interests, Inc. v. Charles William Kriegel, Receiver

788 F.2d 311 (Fifth Circuit, 1986)

In Re Jerry B. Barrier, Debtor. National Bank of Commerce v. Jerry B. Barrier

776 F.2d 1298 (Fifth Circuit, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

694 F.2d 88, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 23150, 9 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 1352, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-emerald-oil-company-debtor-william-c-sandoz-trustee-in-chapter-11-ca5-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack