  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
is usually described as an equitable claim, because the Trustee is seeking a money judgment as her principal remedy, it is a legal claim. The Trustee's claims are all private claims since they are neither created under the Bankruptcy Code nor are core proceedings; and, thus, Congress lacks the power to preclude a jury trial on these claims. Marathon did not waive its right to a jury trial for asserting an affirmative defense of 'contribution' because although labeled 'contribution,' the affirmative defense is really alleging a failure of a condition subsequent.
Facts: High Voltage Engineering Corp. ("HVE") filed chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2004 (the "2004 Bankruptcy") and a plan of reorganization was confirmed in that case. However, the 2004 reorganization was a failure and HVE again declared chapter 11 in 2005 (the "2005 Bankruptcy"), which ultimately ended up being a liquidation with a liquidation trustee (the "Trustee") appointed. A liquidation plan was affirmed in July 2006. However, in late 2005, the Trustee sought to vacate certain fee orders (the "Fee Orders") that had been entered by the bankruptcy court for the benefit of certain of the Debtor's professionals in the 2004 Bankruptcy and filed motions for relief from judgment (the "Motions") in both the 2004 Bankruptcy and 2005 Bankruptcy. After the 2006 plan was confirmed, the bankruptcy court denied the Motions and the Trustee appealed the decision only in the 2005 Bankruptcy case. One of the professionals - Evercore Restructuring, L.L.C. ("Evercore") - moved to dismiss (the "Motion to Dismiss") the appeal, and the other two professionals joined in the motion to dismiss. The district court granted the Motion to Dismiss saying that the appeal period had run for the Trustee to appeal the denial of the Motions in the 2004 Bankruptcy, which was res judicata in the 2005 Bankruptcy appeal.
Issues: Whether the Trustee properly appealed the bankruptcy court's denial of the Motions.
Holding: Affirmed.
Reasoning: The Fee Orders that the Trustee wanted overturned were in the 2004 Bankruptcy, concerned only the 2004 Bankruptcy, and were only filed in the 2004 Bankruptcy docket. Thus, any challenge to the Fee Orders had to be filed in the 2004 Bankruptcy and the Trustee erred in filing the Motions in the 2005 Bankruptcy. In turn, when the bankruptcy court denied the Motions, it only really affected the 2004 Bankruptcy. That the bankruptcy court denied the Motions in the 2005 Bankruptcy was purely clerical since, after all, the Trustee had filed a motion in that case which had to be disposed of in one way or the other. Further, the court notes that the 2004 Bankruptcy and the 2005 Bankruptcy were not consolidated and, even if they were, the law of the First Circuit is such that a notice of appeal had to be filed in both cases. Ultimately, the Trustee appealed in the wrong case, which deprived the district court of any jurisdiction to hear an appeal of the bankruptcy court's denial of the Motions.
Facts: In 2004, Dr. Beitel entered into an outsource agreement with OCA and signed two promissory notes payable to OCA in the form of monthly fees. By late 2005, Dr. Beitel had stopped making the payments and OCA, already in bankruptcy, filed this adversary proceeding against Dr. Beitel to recover for Dr. Beitel's breach. A default judgment was entered against Dr. Beitel in the bankruptcy court when Dr. Beitel and his attorney failed to appear when his trial was called. Dr. Beitel filed a motion to set aside or vacate the default judgment and the bankruptcy court denied the motion. Dr. Beitel appealed.
