In re Johnson

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
• Decided: June 2, 2017
• Docket: 16-8035
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

By order of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, the precedential effect of this decision is limited to the case and parties pursuant to 6th Cir. BAP LBR 8024-1(b). See also 6th Cir. BAP LBR 8014-1(c). File Name: 17b0004n.06

BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

In re: JOHN JOSEPH LOUIS JOHNSON III, ┐ Debtor. │ ___________________________________________ │ │ No. 16-8035 JOHN JOSEPH LOUIS JOHNSON III, > Plaintiff-Appellee, │ │ │ v. │ │ RFF FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, LP, │ │ Defendant-Appellant. ┘

Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus. No. 14-57104—John E. Hoffman, Judge.

Argued: May 9, 2017

Decided and Filed: June 2, 2017

Before: HARRISON, OPPERMAN and WISE, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judges.

_________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Jeffrey M. Levinson, LEVINSON LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellant. Jeffrey A. Yeager, HAHN LOESER & PARKS, LLP, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Jeffrey M. Levinson, LEVINSON LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellant. Jeffrey A. Yeager, Marc J. Kessler, Daniel A. DeMarco, Rocco I. Debitetto, HAHN LOESER & PARKS, LLP, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee. No. 16-8035 In re Johnson Page 2

OPINION _________________

MARIAN F. HARRISON, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judge. RFF Family Partnership, LP (“RFF”), appeals the decision of the bankruptcy court to enter summary judgment for John Joseph Louis Johnson, III (“debtor”) on his complaint for declaratory relief seeking a declaration that: (1) RFF does not have a valid security interest in, or assignment of, debtor’s player contract or the salary payments under the contract; and (2) even if it did, RFF’s interest with respect to the salary debtor earned postpetition was cut off by Bankruptcy Code § 552.

After carefully reviewing the record, the applicable law, and the parties’ briefs, the Panel finds that the bankruptcy court correctly set forth the facts and the governing law. This Panel’s issuance of a full opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose and would be duplicative, and so we affirm the grant of summary judgment, adopting the reasoning of the bankruptcy court’s August 16, 2016, opinion, 554 B.R. 448 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2016). Accordingly, the bankruptcy court’s order granting the debtor’s motion for summary judgment is AFFIRMED.