TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Oriole Kjellsen. Terry D. Wieczorek v. Shirley Woldt Oriole Kjellsen

In Re Oriole KJELLSEN. Terry D. WIECZOREK, Appellee, v. Shirley WOLDT; Oriole Kjellsen, Appellants

Oriole Kjellsen. Terry D. Wieczorek v. Shirley Woldt Oriole Kjellsen, 53 F.3d 944 (8th Cir. 1995)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
June 16, 1995
Docket
No. 94-1821
Judges
Bowman, Wollman, Arnold
Citations
53 F.3d 944

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Shirley Woldt and her mother, Oriole Kjellsen, appeal the District Court’s 1

reversal of the Bankruptcy Court’s denial of a motion to dismiss the Chapter 13 petition. We affirm.

In 1990, a South Dakota Circuit Court found that Kjellson suffered from dementia which prevented her from adequately managing her estate. The Circuit Court further found that, on numerous occasions, Woldt had acted on behalf of Kjellson pursuant to a durable power of attorney and that there was evidence of overreaching by Woldt, including several loans and funds transfers which were not in Kjellsen’s best interests. In rejecting Woldt and appointing Terry Wieczorek as *946 guardian of the estate, the Circuit Court concluded that the power of attorney should be terminated. Several days after his appointment, Wieezorek notified Woldt that he was revoking the power of attorney.

In February 1993, a voluntary petition requesting relief under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code was filed by Woldt on Kjellsen’s behalf.

2

Wieezorek moved to dismiss the petition on the ground, inter alia, that as guardian, he was the only proper person to file the bankruptcy petition. The Bankruptcy Court denied the motion.

See In re Kjellsen, 155 B.R. 1013, 1021 (Bankr. D.S.D.1993) Wieezorek appealed, and the District Court reversed.

See Wieczorek v. Woldt (In re Kjellsen), No. 93-4137 (D.S.D. Mar. 23, 1994).

In this appeal, Woldt argues that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the Bankruptcy Court’s order and that she could properly file the petition on Kjellsen’s behalf.

Contrary to Woldt’s assertion, the District Court possessed jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal of the bankruptcy court’s denial of the dismissal motion.

See 28 U.S.C. § 158 (a) (1988);

Ichinose v. Homer Nat. Bank, 946 F.2d 1169 , 1177 (5th Cir.1991)

(In re Ichinose)

(explaining that district court can entertain interlocutory appeal of denial of dismissal motion). We have jurisdiction over the instant appeal because the District Court’s dismissal of the bankruptcy petition is a final order.

See In re Ichinose, 946 F.2d at 1177;

see also 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d).

When reviewing bankruptcy court decisions, we act as a second court of review. Like the District Court, we review questions of law de novo, and factual findings for clear error.

See In re Graven, 936 F.2d 378 , 382 (8th Cir.1991). We agree with the District Court that Woldt lacked authority to file the petition on Kjellsen’s behalf. In general, state law determines who has the authority to file a bankruptcy petition on behalf of another.

Cf. Keenihan v. Heritage Press, Inc., 19 F.3d 1255, 1258 (8th Cir.1994) (looking to state law to determine who could file bankruptcy petition on behalf of corporation). It is undisputed that under South Dakota law in effect at the time of the petition’s filing, the guardian of Kjellsen’s estate had exclusive control over her property.

See S.D. Codified Laws Ann. § 30-27-6 (1984) (repealed 1993);

In re Guardianship of Estate of Howe, 69 S.D. 623 , 13 N.W.2d 668, 669 (1944). As bankruptcy proceedings concern the disposition of property, see 11 U.S.C. § 541 (a) (1988) (filing of petition creates bankruptcy estate), and as Wieezorek had exclusive control over Kjellsen’s property, Woldt and Kjellsen necessarily lacked authority to file the bankruptcy petition.

Further, Bankruptcy Rule 7017 incorporates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17 for adversary proceedings. Rule 17(c) provides: ‘Whenever an ... incompetent person has a representative, such as a general guardian ..., the representative may sue ... on behalf of the ... incompetent person. An ... incompetent person who does not have a duly appointed representative may sue by next friend or by a guardian ad litem.” As the District Court correctly determined, Rule 17(c) does not provide for a suit by a next friend when an incompetent already has a duly appointed representative; as Wieezorek was the duly appointed representative, Woldt could not maintain a suit on Kjellsen’s behalf.

See Garrick v. Weaver, 888 F.2d 687, 692-93 (10th Cir.1989).

Accordingly, the District Court’s judgment dismissing the bankruptcy petition is affirmed.

1

. The Honorable John B. Jones, Senior United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota.

2

.

Under Woldt's signature she typed "Durable Power of Attorney.” Kjellsen also purportedly signed the petition.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 6 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 20 cases

View all citing references →
1995: 31996: 41999: 32000: 22003: 22004: 22021: 22023: 219952026peak 1996 · 4

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Buda252 B.R. 125 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2000)
  2. In re Murray199 B.R. 165 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1996)
  3. In re Wiley184 B.R. 759 (N.D. Iowa 1995)
  4. In re King234 B.R. 515 (Bankr. D.N.M. 1999)
  5. Jones Truck Lines, Inc., an Arkansas Corporation, Debtor. Jones Truck Lines, Inc. v. Foster's Truck & Equipment Sales, Inc.63 F.3d 685 (8th Cir. 1995)
  6. Rene Lee Meseraull, Also Known as Rene Lee O'DOnnell v. Rick Miller Construction, Inc.82 F.3d 421 (8th Cir. 1996)

Most recent

  1. Marquis Quintell JohnsonNo. 23-30121 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. Dec. 26, 2023)
  2. Carlos Alberto Rivas and Tamara Lynn RivasNo. 23-10505 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. Dec. 12, 2023)
  3. Jerry Sugg and Barbara SuggNo. 20-44903 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. Sept. 30, 2021)
  4. Johnie Frank Adeluola Lipede JonesNo. 21-42104 (Bankr. E.D. Mo. Aug. 16, 2021)
  5. Thousand Acres Development, LLC v. Iannacone (In re Kreger)307 B.R. 106 (8th Cir. BAP 2004)
  6. Thousand Acres v. Michael J. IannaconeNo. 04-6009 (8th Cir. BAP Mar. 19, 2004)

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
In re Guardian. Howes' Estate, 13 N.W.2d 668 (S.D. 1944) 1
Garrick v. Weaver, 888 F.2d 687 (10th Cir. 1989) 88
Keenihan v. Heritage Press, Inc., 19 F.3d 1255 (8th Cir. 1994) 19
In re Kjellsen, 155 B.R. 1013 (Bankr. D.S.D. 1993) 9

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