In re Paolino

E.D. Pennsylvania

In re Paolino

75 B.R. 553, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5705

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 25, 1987

DocketCiv. A. No. 87-2794

StatusPublished

This text of 75 B.R. 553 (In re Paolino) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re Paolino, 75 B.R. 553, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5705 (E.D. Pa. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

FULLAM, Chief Judge.

To the extent that the Order of the bankruptcy judge involved in this appeal may be deemed interlocutory, I grant leave to appeal.

The bankruptcy judge’s credibility assessments reflect findings of fact, which can be set aside by this court only if clearly erroneous. Neither the credibility findings, nor any other finding of fact challenged in this appeal, are clearly erroneous. Findings Nos. 33 and 36, to the effect that Dr. Richard Paolino and the law firm of Pincus, Verlin, Hahn and Reich, P.C. had actual and apparent authority to act on behalf of Mrs. Paolino — whether properly characterized as findings of fact, as findings of ultimate fact, or as mixed findings of fact and conclusions of law, or as pure conclusions of law — are plainly correct, amply supported by the record, and therefore must be affirmed.

Accordingly, the bankruptcy judge’s April 7, 1987 Order, 72 B.R. 323, will be affirmed.

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

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

FULLAM, Chief Judge.

To the extent that the Order of the bankruptcy judge involved in this appeal may be deemed interlocutory, I grant leave to appeal.

The bankruptcy judge’s credibility assessments reflect findings of fact, which can be set aside by this court only if clearly erroneous. Neither the credibility findings, nor any other finding of fact challenged in this appeal, are clearly erroneous. Findings Nos. 33 and 36, to the effect that Dr. Richard Paolino and the law firm of Pincus, Verlin, Hahn and Reich, P.C. had actual and apparent authority to act on behalf of Mrs. Paolino — whether properly characterized as findings of fact, as findings of ultimate fact, or as mixed findings of fact and conclusions of law, or as pure conclusions of law — are plainly correct, amply supported by the record, and therefore must be affirmed.

Accordingly, the bankruptcy judge’s April 7, 1987 Order, 72 B.R. 323, will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 B.R. 553, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5705, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-paolino-paed-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack