Lytle v. Porter

Second Circuit

Lytle v. Porter

413 F.2d 302

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJuly 9, 1969

DocketNos. 705-710, Dockets 33459, 33462-33466

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 413 F.2d 302 (Lytle v. Porter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lytle v. Porter, 413 F.2d 302 (2d Cir. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, John O. Henderson, C. J., which affirmed an order of the referee in bankruptcy granting to the bankruptcy trustee of Cintra Realty Corporation a turnover order as to the assets of respondents James 0. and Ann D. Porter and four corporations whose stock they own. Cintra Realty, apparently solely owned by James Porter, was adjudicated an involuntary bankrupt in September 1966, an order approved by this court in February 1967. In re Cintra Realty Corp., 373 F.2d 321 (2d Cir. 1967). The record shows this to be a classic case of mingling of allegedly separate corporate and personal assets in one business by a husband and wife operating out of one office with one bank account and with complete disregard for supposed differences in entities. On these facts, there is no merit to the arguments that summary jurisdiction was inappropriate or that a turnover order was improper. Soviero v. Franklin National Bank, 328 F.2d 446 (2d Cir. 1964). Appellants rely upon Suhl v. Bumb, 348 F.2d 869 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 938, 86 S.Ct. 388, 15 L.Ed.2d 349 (1965), but the intermingling of personal and “corporate” accounts was far less pervasive there. Appellants’ final argument that there were material gaps in the record before the referee is also unpersuasive.

Judgment affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York, John O. Henderson, C. J., which affirmed an order of the referee in bankruptcy granting to the bankruptcy trustee of Cintra Realty Corporation a turnover order as to the assets of respondents James 0. and Ann D. Porter and four corporations whose stock they own. Cintra Realty, apparently solely owned by James Porter, was adjudicated an involuntary bankrupt in September 1966, an order approved by this court in February 1967. In re Cintra Realty Corp., 373 F.2d 321 (2d Cir. 1967). The record shows this to be a classic case of mingling of allegedly separate corporate and personal assets in one business by a husband and wife operating out of one office with one bank account and with complete disregard for supposed differences in entities. On these facts, there is no merit to the arguments that summary jurisdiction was inappropriate or that a turnover order was improper. Soviero v. Franklin National Bank, 328 F.2d 446 (2d Cir. 1964). Appellants rely upon Suhl v. Bumb, 348 F.2d 869 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 938, 86 S.Ct. 388, 15 L.Ed.2d 349 (1965), but the intermingling of personal and “corporate” accounts was far less pervasive there. Appellants’ final argument that there were material gaps in the record before the referee is also unpersuasive.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

413 F.2d 302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lytle-v-porter-ca2-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack