Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
2d 784
On August 17, 1987 a bankruptcy judge entered an order permitting the trustee
to conduct the sale of the subject property under specified conditions, including
the following: "Unless other arrangements are made satisfactory to both the
trustee and Kemira, ... all property shall be removed from the site within sixty
(60) days following the sale."
On October 23, 1987 the sale articles were purchased by Miller Resources, Inc.
(Miller Resources), a corporation organized and wholly owned by Lawrence
Miller, the debtor's former president. An order entered by the bankruptcy judge
on November 23, 1987 confirmed the sale subject to objection by an interested
party within ten days; however, no reference was made to the sixty day removal
requirement contained in the previous order of August 17. No objections were
filed, so the sale became final on December 3, 1987.
In June 1988 debtor's landlord filed a motion in the bankruptcy court seeking
damages for the loss of use of its real property, alleging that Miller and Miller
Resources had failed to remove the sale articles as required by the August 17
order. After the issuance of a show cause order and an evidentiary hearing,
debtor's landlord moved to have the sanction of civil contempt imposed upon
Miller and Miller Resources as a penalty for noncompliance with the sixty day
removal requirement. The court found that Lawrence Miller purchased the sale
articles at a reduced price since all other bidders were forced to factor removal
costs into their bids. Subsequently, according to the court, Miller knowingly
and intentionally violated the sale conditions to enhance the potential profit
margin on resale. In addition, as former president of Lemco, Miller was fully
aware that intact buildings and equipment would bring a higher resale price
than unassembled parts. Based on the above evidence and the willful character
of Miller's disregard for the court's orders, the bankruptcy judge found both
Miller and Miller Resources in civil contempt and awarded damages in favor of
debtor's landlord. On appeal to the district court the defendants vigorously
contended that the Bankruptcy Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter
the civil contempt order against them for the following reasons: (1) neither
Miller nor Miller Resources were parties in Lemco's bankruptcy action; and (2)
the articles at issue had ceased to be a part of the bankruptcy estate in
December 1987 when the order of sale became final. The district court noted
that the defendants intentionally refused to comply with the sixty day removal
requirement in the bankruptcy court's August 17, 1987 sale order; therefore,
according to the court, there had been no final disposition of the sale articles
which would divest the bankruptcy court of jurisdiction over the matter. The
bankruptcy court's action was classified as an exercise of its continuing power
to enforce its orders and the civil contempt sanctions against Miller and Miller
Resources were affirmed.
6
Miller and Miller Resources appeal the district court's ruling on the
jurisdictional issue. We review the district court's findings of fact for clear error
and its conclusions of law independently.1
Issue
7
This appeal presents a narrow question of law: does the bankruptcy court retain
jurisdiction and power to control the disposition of the debtor's property after
the final sale of said property in a Chapter 7 proceeding?
Discussion
8
I.
11
12
In Pacor, Inc. v. Higgins17 the Third Circuit enunciated a test for determining
whether a civil proceeding is sufficiently related to bankruptcy to confer federal
jurisdiction on the district court. "The usual articulation of the test for
Applying this test to the present case, it must be determined whether, at the
time the motion for damages alleging loss of use was filed, the outcome of
"civil action" between Miller Resources and Kemira conceivably could have
affected the administration of Lemco's estate. 20 The dispute between the parties
centers around the bankruptcy court's order of August 17, 1987, which
contained the sixty day removal requirement. It is undisputed that Lawrence
Miller was fully aware of the removal requirement when the equipment was
purchased on October 23, 1987. However, the removal requirement was not
included in the final order of sale entered on November 23, 1987. Debtor's
landlord failed to enter an objection to the content of the order during the sale
proceedings and now asserts that the removal requirement of the August 17
order should be read into the November 23 order by implication. According to
debtor's landlord, the sale orders issued by the bankruptcy court were never
fully complied with by appellants; therefore, the bankruptcy court could
oversee the dispute between the parties because of its continuing power to
enforce its orders. We agree that courts should retain jurisdiction to enforce
their orders, but this does not help Kemira. The fact remains that the sale of the
debtor's equipment became final on December 3, 1987, and at that time the
property left its estate. When property is sold by the trustee with the approval of
the court, the buyer acquires title clear of all claims in bankruptcy.21 Such
property may not be hauled back into the estate, and the terms are inviolate in
the absence of fraud or collusion.22
14
The fact that property was once owned by a bankrupt does not supply federal
jurisdiction of all future disputes concerning the property.23 The broad
jurisdictional provisions set forth in Sec. 1334 grant the district courts power to
supervise the entire restructuring of the debtor's estate. However, once property
is sold, further disputes have nothing to do with the debtor's estate. The dispute
here is between debtor's landlord and Miller Resources; there is no suggestion
that the proceeds, if recovered, would be turned over to the trustee. The
judgment of the bankruptcy court orders Miller Resources to pay damages
directly to debtor's landlord, so we fail to see how recovery could conceivably
have an effect on debtor's estate.24 This dispute does not involve the
identification of the debtor's property interests and cannot affect other creditors.
There is no reason for the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction to linger.25
15
As noted by the Seventh Circuit in Matter of Chicago, Rock Island & Pac. R.R.
Co., the presence of a federal right or decision in the chain of title is insufficient
to confer jurisdiction on a federal court.26 Only when federal law supplies the
rule of decision, or an interpretation of a federal right is an essential ingredient
of a claim, does the dispute present a federal question.27 New disputes arising
after the property has been sold by the trustee to a third party must be resolved
through the processes available for the resolution of such independent
disputes.28 In other words, this dispute is about rights incident to the ownership
of real property, a question of state law. Such disputes should be decided by a
state court; state law supplies the rule of decision for disputes concerning
property transferred from bankrupts.29
16
We hold that the dispute between Miller Resources and Kemira is not "related
to" the bankruptcy; its connections with the estate of debtor Lemco are simply
too tenuous for jurisdiction to lie under Sec. 1334(b). Overlap between the
bankrupt's affairs and another dispute is insufficient unless its resolution also
affects the bankrupt's estate or the allocation of assets among creditors.30 The
mere fact that there may be common issues of fact between a civil proceeding
and a controversy involving the bankruptcy estate does not bring the matter
within the scope of Sec. 1334(b). Judicial economy itself does not justify
federal jurisdiction.31 The district court had no independent basis for federal
question jurisdiction over the dispute between Miller Resources and Kemira.
II.
17
If the district court has no jurisdiction over a particular proceeding, then neither
does the bankruptcy court.32 The bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to
entertain the motion for contempt against appellants; therefore, we need not
determine whether the bankruptcy court properly exercised its constitutionally
available powers in assessing sanctions against appellants for contempt.
Conclusion
18
See Rule 34-2(b), Rules of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
**
Honorable Edward S. Smith, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit,
sitting by designation
See, e.g., Hart v. United States, 894 F.2d 1539, 1544 (11th Cir.1990); American
Hardwoods, Inc. v. Deutsche Credit Corp. (In re American Hardwoods, Inc.),
885 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir.1989)
Wood v. Wood (In Re Wood), 825 F.2d 90, 93; S.Rep. No. 989, 95 Cong., 2d
Sess., 153-54 (1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 5787,
5939-40
Pacor, Inc. v. Higgins, 743 F.2d 984, 994 (3rd Cir.1984); See also H.Rep. No.
598, 95th Cong., 2d Sess., 43-48, reprinted in 1978 U.S.Code Cong. &
Admin.News 5963, 6004-08
Fietz v. Great W. Savings (In re Fietz), 852 F.2d 455, 457 (9th Cir.1988)
In re Wood, 825 F.2d 90, 93 (5th Cir.1987); citing Marathon, 458 U.S. at 71,
102 S.Ct. at 2871
In Re Wood, 825 F.2d 90, 91 (5th Cir.1987). See also Northern Pipeline
Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 102 S.Ct. 2858, 73
L.Ed.2d 598 (1982)
10
11
original but not exclusive jurisdiction of all civil proceedings arising under Title
11, or arising in or related to cases under Title 11. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1334 (1988).
12
13
14
In re Fietz, 852 F.2d 455, 457 (9th Cir.1988); see also H.Rep. No. 595, 95
Cong., 2d Sess. 43-48, reprinted in 1978 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News
6004-08
15
Id
16
In Re Wood, 825 F.2d at 93. We agree with the Fifth Circuit's opinion in Wood
that the abstention provisions of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1334(c)(1) (1988) at least
partially address the comity issue and obviate the need for an overly restrictive
interpretation of the jurisdictional grant of Sec. 1334(b)
17
18
19
As noted in In re Fietz, 852 F.2d 455, 457 (9th Cir.1988), the Fourth, Fifth,
Eighth and Ninth Circuits have adopted the Pacor test without modification.
See In re Fietz, 852 F.2d at 457; In Re Wood, 825 F.2d 90, 93 (5th Cir.1987);
Dogpatch Properties, Inc. v. Dogpatch U.S.A., Inc. (In re Dogpatch U.S.A.,
Inc.), 810 F.2d 782, 786 (8th Cir.1987); A.H. Robins Co., Inc. v. Piccinin (In re
A.H. Robins Co., Inc.), 788 F.2d 994, 1002 n. 11 (4th Cir.) cert. denied 479
U.S. 876, 107 S.Ct. 251, 93 L.Ed.2d 177 (1986). The Second, Sixth, and
Seventh Circuits have adopted a more restrictive form of the Pacor test. Their
formulations may deny jurisdiction in cases where the dispute's probable effect
on the debtor's estate, while conceivable, is nonetheless remote. See Turner v.
Ermiger (In re Turner), 724 F.2d 338, 341 (2d Cir.1983); Kelley v. Nodine (In
re Salem Mortgage Co.), 783 F.2d 626, 634 (6th Cir.1986); Elscint, Inc. v. First
Wis. Fin. Corp. (In re Xonics, Inc.), 813 F.2d 127 (7th Cir.1987)
20
21
In Re Chicago, Rock Island & Pac. Ry., 794 F.2d 1182, 1187 (7th Cir.1986)
22
Id. Kemira does not contend that Lawrence Miller or Miller Resources acted
fraudulently in the course of the sale proceedings. Kemira failed to object to the
conditions contained in the final order of sale. In order to protect the interests of
good faith purchasers and the integrity of the bankruptcy system, the sale must
be considered final. See In re Suchy, 786 F.2d 900, 902 (9th Cir.1985)
23
24
Kemira asserts that a land owner where the debtor's property has remained
beyond the allotted sixty days could possibly assert a claim against the trustee
for administrative expenses. After the property has been sold by the trustee and
is outside the estate, Kemira's custodial efforts confer no value on the estate of
debtor Lemco. See, e.g. In re United Trucking Serv., 851 F.2d 159, 161 (6th
Cir.1988)
25
26
27
In re Chicago, Rock Island & Pac. Ry., 794 F.2d at 1188, citing Gully v. First
Nat'l Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 57 S.Ct. 96, 81 L.Ed. 70 (1936)
28
29
Id. at 1188
30
Home Ins. Co. v. Cooper & Cooper, Ltd., 889 F.2d 746, 749 (7th Cir.1989)
31
32
In re Fietz, 852 F.2d 455, 457 (9th Cir.1988). See also 28 U.S.C. Sec. 157
(1988)
33