TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Langenkamp v. Moore (In re Republic Financial Corp.)

In Re REPUBLIC FINANCIAL CORPORATION, an Oklahoma Corporation, Debtor. R. Dobie LANGENKAMP, Successor Trustee, Plaintiff, v. Kenneth D. MOORE and Mary L. Moore, Defendants

Langenkamp v. Moore (In re Republic Fin. Corp.), 77 B.R. 840 (Bankr. N.D. Okla 1987)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Bankruptcy Courts
Decided
February 26, 1987
Docket
No. 19-10058
Judges
Mark B. McFeeley
Citations
77 B.R. 8401987 Bankr. LEXIS 2436

Opinion — McFEELEY

ORDER DENYING JURY DEMAND MARK B. McFEELEY, Bankruptcy Judge.

This matter came before the Court upon the jury trial demand of defendants Kenneth D. Moore and Mary L. Moore (Moores). The successor trustee, R. Dobie Langenkamp (“Trustee”), opposes this demand stating that the Moores are not entitled to a jury trial in a proceeding under § 547 of the Bankruptcy Code. This Court agrees with the view of the trustee.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157 (b)(2)(F), this proceeding seeking “to determine, avoid, or recover preferences” is a core proceeding. Therefore, this Court may enter a final judgment in the action and may decide whether there is a right to a jury.

In re Reda, Inc., 60 B.R. 178 (Bankr.N.D.Ill.1986);

In re Rodgers & Sons, Inc., 48 B.R. 688, 688 (Bankr.E.D.Okla.1985).

The preference action which is the subject of this adversary proceeding is strictly a creature of § 547. “[T]here was no right at common law for a debtor or creditor to sue to recover a preference.”

Reda, 60 B.R. at 180 . Therefore, applying the Seventh Amendment standard for determining whether the right to a jury trial exists, “there obviously was no common law right to a jury trial in actions to avoid preferential transfers.”

Id.

Further, there is no statutory right to a jury trial in a preference action. Nor is a preference action one seeking money damages such that the right to a jury trial exists.

Id.; see also, Rodgers & Sons, 48 B.R. at 689 . Therefore, it is the view of this Court, in keeping with the majority ruling of courts faced with this issue, see Reda, 60 B.R. 178 and cases cited therein, that the right to a jury trial does not exist in this preference action.

WHEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the jury trial demand of the Moores is denied.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1987: 11988: 219872026peak 1988 · 2

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Reda, Inc. v. Harris Trust & Sav. Bank (In re Reda, Inc.), 60 B.R. 178 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1986) 27
Lerblance v. Rodgers (In re Rodgers & Sons, Inc.), 48 B.R. 683 (Bankr. E.D. Okla. 1985) 37

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list