Vergos v. Adams (In Re Adams)

M.D. Tennessee

Vergos v. Adams (In Re Adams)

209 B.R. 874, 1997 WL 391625

CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Tennessee

DecidedJuly 10, 1997

DocketBankruptcy 96-03316-KL3

StatusPublished

This text of 209 B.R. 874 (Vergos v. Adams (In Re Adams)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Vergos v. Adams (In Re Adams), 209 B.R. 874, 1997 WL 391625 (Tenn. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

GEORGE C. PAINE, II, Chief Judge.

This matter is before the court on the remand order from the United States District Court. Following an adverse decision on her motion to dismiss James and Carla Adams’ (“debtors”) chapter 7 petition pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 707(b), the United States Trustee appealed to the district court. While on appeal, the United States Trustee discovered that the debtors were expecting a baby, and therefore agreed not to pursue appeal on the § 707(b) issue, provided that this court vacates its decision found at In re Adams, 206 B.R. 456 (Bankr.M.D.Tenn.1997).

To finalize this matter, the United States Trustee filed a motion to approve the compromise and settlement which included a provision whereby this court would withdraw its decision from publication. This court entered an order stating that it lacked jurisdiction because the matter was on appeal with the district court. The district court subsequently entered an order approving the compromise and settlement of the United States Trustee’s appeal. The order included instructions for this court to vacate its earlier decision.

Due to what the United States Trustee perceives to be the changed circumstances of the debtors, she elected not to pursue appeal of this issue. However, on the facts as they were presented to this court at the time of its decision, the § 707(b) issue was correctly decided under the law. Therefore, although the court hereby vacates its earlier decision because of the settlement on appeal, the court nonetheless affirms its earlier ruling that under the facts, as presented to the court at the time of decision, the debtors’ chapter 7 case was not appropriate for dismissal under § 707(b).

It is hereby ordered that the court’s earlier decision, although correctly decided under the law, is vacated due to the settlement of this matter on appeal.

It is, THEREFORE, so ordered.

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

ORDER

GEORGE C. PAINE, II, Chief Judge.

This matter is before the court on the remand order from the United States District Court. Following an adverse decision on her motion to dismiss James and Carla Adams’ (“debtors”) chapter 7 petition pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 707(b), the United States Trustee appealed to the district court. While on appeal, the United States Trustee discovered that the debtors were expecting a baby, and therefore agreed not to pursue appeal on the § 707(b) issue, provided that this court vacates its decision found at In re Adams, 206 B.R. 456 (Bankr.M.D.Tenn.1997).

To finalize this matter, the United States Trustee filed a motion to approve the compromise and settlement which included a provision whereby this court would withdraw its decision from publication. This court entered an order stating that it lacked jurisdiction because the matter was on appeal with the district court. The district court subsequently entered an order approving the compromise and settlement of the United States Trustee’s appeal. The order included instructions for this court to vacate its earlier decision.

Due to what the United States Trustee perceives to be the changed circumstances of the debtors, she elected not to pursue appeal of this issue. However, on the facts as they were presented to this court at the time of its decision, the § 707(b) issue was correctly decided under the law. Therefore, although the court hereby vacates its earlier decision because of the settlement on appeal, the court nonetheless affirms its earlier ruling that under the facts, as presented to the court at the time of decision, the debtors’ chapter 7 case was not appropriate for dismissal under § 707(b).

It is hereby ordered that the court’s earlier decision, although correctly decided under the law, is vacated due to the settlement of this matter on appeal.

It is, THEREFORE, so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 B.R. 874, 1997 WL 391625, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vergos-v-adams-in-re-adams-tnmb-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack