Skelton v. Clements
| Decision Date | 19 February 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 22256,22256 |
| Citation | 408 F.2d 353 |
| Parties | Willa G. SKELTON and Charles W. Skelton, Appellants, v. Richard R. CLEMENTS, Trustee, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Willa G. Skelton, in pro. per.
Robinson, Wolas & Hagen; Enright, Elliott & Betz, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before BARNES, CARTER and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges.
These appeals arise out of the administration of the appellants' bankrupt estate. Appellant (with her now deceased husband) filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy on November 21, 1966, was adjudicated bankrupt, and appellee was appointed trustee. Appellant was discharged in bankruptcy on February 9, 1967.
Appellant had a cause of action which arose prior to the date of bankruptcy and which became part of the bankrupt estate. On April 21, 1967, the referee approved a compromise of the controversy made by the trustee. On April 27, 1967, the referee confirmed the sale by the trustee of certain property which was part of the bankrupt estate. Appellant filed a petition to review these orders; the trustee filed a motion to dismiss this petition and the motion was granted by the district court on July 6, 1967. From this dismissal, appellant now appeals (No. 22,256).
Appellant filed a petition for abandonment of the bankruptcy proceedings on March 8, 1967; the trustee and others opposed this petition. After a hearing, the referee found that it was in the best interests of those concerned to continue the proceedings and on May 2, 1967, denied the petition. Appellant filed a petition to review this denial, but the district court on October 5, 1967, confirmed the denial. From this confirmation, appellant now appeals (No. 22,256A).
Appellant makes many claims on appeal, most of which are irrelevant to the case. Basically, she claims, without relevant support, that the orders of the referee dated April 21 and 27, 1967, and May 2, 1967, are not supported by the evidence, are prejudicial, are in excess of the bankruptcy court's authority, and are the products of fraud.
The trustee was vested with the causes of action pending at the date of filing the bankruptcy, Sec. 70a(5) of the Bankruptcy Act, hereafter the Act, 11 U.S.C. § 110(a) (5); Sec. 688.1 of the Cal.C.C.P.; Carmona v. Robinson, 336 F.2d 518 (9 Cir.1964), and with the bankrupt's personal property, Sec. 70a of the Act, 11 U.S.C. § 110(a). The trustee had the power to liquidate the estate, Sec. 47a of the Act, 11 U.S.C. § 75(a), and his actions were approved by the referee.
A review of the referee's order may be taken only by a "person aggrieved by the order," Sec. 39(c) of the Act, 11 U.S.C. § 67(c), and the bankrupt (appellant) is not a person aggrieved by these orders, Hartman Corporation of America v. United States, 304 F.2d 429 (8 Cir.1962); Castaner v. Mora, 216 F. 2d 189 (1 Cir.1954). These authorities are dispositive of this appeal. In addition, there has been no showing that the orders were improper or that the referee was clearly erroneous in confirming the compromise or sale.
A bankrupt...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DiLieto v. County Obstetrics & Gynecology Group, PC
...at the date of filing the bankruptcy . . . and with the [debtor's] personal property . . . ." (Citations omitted.) Skelton v. Clements, 408 F.2d 353, 354 (9th Cir. 1969). Moreover, in order to promote the effectuation of the fundamental purposes of the code, "it is necessary and desirable t......
-
Marks v. Brucker
...of Appellant. A bankrupt normally has no interest in the estate in bankruptcy and cannot do as Appellant has done here. Skelton v. Clements, 408 F. 2d 353 (9th Cir. 1969); Klein v. Rancho Montana de Oro, Inc., 263 F.2d 764 (9th Cir. 1959). "The Bankrupt, while unhappy, was not aggrieved." M......
-
S.E.C. v. Securities Northwest, Inc.
...and immediate; he thus lacks standing to maintain the appeal. 9 Mayer v. National Missile and Electronics, Inc., supra; Skelton v. Clements, 408 F.2d 353 (9th Cir. 1969); Rogers v. Bank of America Nat'l Trust & Savings Ass'n, 142 F.2d 128 (9th Cir. APPEAL DISMISSED. VAN PELT, Senior Distric......
-
Fondiller, Matter of
...to have standing to appeal that order. Hartman Corp. of America v. United States, 304 F.2d 429, 431 (8th Cir.1962); see Skelton v. Clements, 408 F.2d 353 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 933, 89 S.Ct. 1202, 22 L.Ed.2d 462 (1969). Thus, a hopelessly insolvent debtor does not have standing ......