TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Bankr. L. Rep. P 75,306 in Re Billy D. Lyons, Debtor. C.W. Lyons Anna C. Lyons v. Billy D. Lyons

In Re Billy D. LYONS, Debtor. C.W. LYONS; Anna C. Lyons, Appellants, v. Billy D. LYONS, Appellee

Bankr. L. Rep. P 75,306 in Re Billy D. Lyons, Debtor. C.W. Lyons Anna C. Lyons v. Lyons, 995 F.2d 923 (9th Cir. 1993)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
June 14, 1993
Docket
No. 91-35921
Judges
Skopil, Alarcon, Beezer
Citations
995 F.2d 92393 Daily Journal DAR 74601993 WL 19750793 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 43641993 U.S. App. LEXIS 13643

Opinion — Beezer

BEEZER, Circuit Judge:

C.W. and Anna Lyons, owners of real property as tenants in common with Chapter 7 debtor Billy Lyons, appeal the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s decision that the bankruptcy trustee is not required to initiate an adversary proceeding to obtain authority to sell the real property free of the non-debtor cp-owners’ interests. We reverse and remand.

I

The trustee moved to sell the estate’s interest in the real property as well as the interests of the non-debtor co-owners. The co-owners objected on the ground that the necessary authority could be obtained only through an adversary proceeding and not by motion. The bankruptcy court ruled an adversary proceeding was unnecessary, and the district court affirmed. The property remains unsold pending the outcome of this appeal.

The district court’s order is reviewable under the liberal finality standard of 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d) because the order affects important property rights, and without an immediate appeal, the co-owners might suffer “irreparable harm.”

In re Vylene Enters., 968 F.2d 887, 895 (9th Cir.1992). Any remedy after the end of the bankruptcy case could not protect the co-owners’ rights because their property presumably would have been sold by then.

We independently review the bankruptcy court’s decision.

Ragsdale v. Haller, 780 F.2d 794, 795 (9th Cir.1986). Findings of fact are reviewed for clear error, and conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. Id.

II

Bankruptcy Rule 7001 designates ten categories of proceedings as adversary proceedings. One category is a proceeding “to obtain approval pursuant to § 363(h) for the sale of both the interest of the estate and of a co-owner in property.” Rule 7001(3). The trustee does not dispute that he seeks approval for a § 363(h) sale and cites no authority granting approval for such a sale without an adversary proceeding.

The trustee may obtain the authority he seeks only through an adversary proceeding. The bankruptcy court’s equitable powers do not allow it to derogate from Rule 7001 in overruling the co-owners’ objection.

United States v. Energy Resources Co., 495 U.S. 545, 549-51 , 110 S.Ct. 2139, 2142-43 , 109 L.Ed.2d 580 (1990);

In re American Hardwoods, Inc., 885 F.2d 621, 625 (9th Cir.1989).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 4 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 16 cases

View all citing references →
1995: 31999: 32001: 12004: 22007: 12008: 32021: 12023: 12024: 119952026peak 1995 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Arturo GonzalezNo. 2:15-bk-25283 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. May 10, 2024)
  2. William Walter Pyle, Jr. v. Harry Holmes, II, Independent of the Estate of Thomas J. Holmes, Sr.No. 03-03-00380-CV (Tex. App.—Austin July 1, 2004)
  3. The Matter of Zale Corporation, Debtor. Alan D. Feld, and National Union Fire Insurance Company, Inc., of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania v. Zale Corporation62 F.3d 746 (5th Cir. 1995)
  4. Ang Ung v. Boni (In re Boni)99 Daily Journal DAR 11151 (9th Cir. BAP 1999)
  5. Montano v. First Light Federal Credit Union (In re Montano)398 B.R. 47 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2008)
  6. In re Romano378 B.R. 454 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2007)

Most recent

  1. Arturo GonzalezNo. 2:15-bk-25283 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. May 10, 2024)
  2. McDaniel v. CrudupNo. 2:22-cv-01481 (D. Ariz. Apr. 14, 2023)
  3. GIGA WATT INCNo. 18-03197 (Bankr. E.D. Wash. Sept. 27, 2021)
  4. In re Innovative Communication Co.50 V.I. 741 (D.V.I. 2008)
  5. Montano v. First Light Federal Credit Union (In re Montano)398 B.R. 47 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2008)
  6. In re Innovative Communication Co.49 V.I. 890 (D.V.I. 2008)

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 4

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Energy Res. Co., 495 U.S. 545 (1990) 261
Bankr. L. Rep. P 70,935 Vance L. Ragsdale v. Haller, 780 F.2d 794 (9th Cir. 1986) 339
Am. Hardwoods, Inc. v. Deutsche Credit Corp., 885 F.2d 621 (9th Cir. 1989) 160
Vylene Enters. v. Naugles, Inc., 968 F.2d 887 (9th Cir. 1992) 69

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