Boullion v. McClanahan
| Decision Date | 09 March 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-3074,80-3074 |
| Citation | 639 F.2d 213 |
| Parties | Ervin J. BOULLION et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. William G. McCLANAHAN, Defendant-Appellee. . Unit A |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Camp, Carmouche, Palmer, Barsh & Hunter, G. Michael Bourgeois, Joseph A. Delafield, Adam L. Ortego, Jr., Lake Charles, La., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Sandoz, Sandoz & Schiff, Gerald H. Schiff, Opelousas, La., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.
Before BROWN, COLEMAN and GEE, Circuit Judges.
The question in this case is whether a trustee acting at the direction of a bankruptcy judge is clothed with absolute immunity against tort actions grounded on his conduct as trustee.
The appellants, Ervin and Margie Boullion, filed bankruptcy petitions in June, 1976. The bankruptcy judge appointed William McClanahan, the appellee, as receiver and later as trustee of the Boullion estate. None of the orders of the bankruptcy judge were challenged by a direct appeal. Instead, the Boullions filed a diversity action in federal district court alleging that McClanahan had violated his fiduciary duties as trustee by (1) recommending an inexperienced appraiser; (2) allowing the filing of an incorrect appraisal; (3) improperly handling sales of the estate property; and (4) failing to surrender disclaimed and exempt assets.
All of McClanahan's actions were approved by orders of the bankruptcy judge.
McClanahan moved for summary judgment on the ground that as a trustee appointed by the bankruptcy judge and as to actions directed or approved by that judge he was entitled to absolute immunity. Summary judgment was granted.
The Supreme Court has stated: "Few doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction ... (citation omitted)." Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 1217, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967). This immunity is not lost even though "the action (the judge) took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority...." Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 356, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 1105, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978).
In the instant case the court-appointed trustee was acting under the supervision and subject to the orders of the bankruptcy judge. We hold that since McClanahan, as an arm of the Court, sought and obtained court approval of his actions, he is entitled to derived immunity. McCray v. State of Maryland, 456 F.2d 1 (4th Cir. 1972); T & W Investment Company, Inc. v. Kurtz, 588 F.2d 801 (10th Cir. 1978); Kermit Construction Corp. v. Banco...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Collins on Behalf of Collins v. Tabet
...(court-appointed receiver); Kermit Constr. Corp. v. Banco Credito y Ahorro Ponceno, 547 F.2d 1 (1st Cir.1976) (same); Boullion v. McClanahan, 639 F.2d 213 (5th Cir.1981) (bankruptcy trustee); Ashbrook v. Hoffman, 617 F.2d 474 (7th Cir.1980) (partition commissioner); Lawyer v. Kernodle, 721 ......
-
In re Heinsohn
...court directive, a trustee is held to the reasonable person standard. See plaintiff's memorandum citing, inter alia, Boullion v. McClanahan, 639 F.2d 213, 214 (5th Cir.1981) (trustee, as arm of the court, having sought and obtained court approval of his actions, was entitled to derived immu......
-
Gross v. Rell
...484 U.S. 832, 108 S.Ct. 108, 98 L.Ed.2d 67 (1987); Demoran v. Witt, 781 F.2d 155 (9th Cir.1986) (probation officer); Boullion v. McClanahan, 639 F.2d 213 (5th Cir.1981) (bankruptcy trustee); T & W Investment Co. v. Kurtz, 588 F.2d 801 (10th Cir.1978) (court-appointed receiver); Burkes v. Ca......
-
Phoenician Mediterranean Villa, LLC v. Lisa M. Swope, Esquire, Tr. of the Bankr. Estate of J&S Props., LLC (In re J&S Props., LLC)
...pursuant to an express court order. See, e.g. , In re Harris , 590 F.3d 730, 742 (9th Cir. 2009) ; Boullion v. McClanahan , 639 F.2d 213, 214 (5th Cir. Unit A Mar. 1981) (per curiam). Phoenician's suit is of the second type, as it alleges no breach of fiduciary duty. Rather, Phoenician is a......
-
The Officer Has No Robes: a Formalist Solution to the Expansion of Quasi-judicial Immunity
...eligible for absolute immunity.198. Id. at 374.199. See id.200. Id.201. Id. at 373-74.202. See id. at 374 (citing Boullion v. McClanahan, 639 F.2d 213, 214 (5th Cir. 1981)).203. See, e.g., Engebretson v. Mahoney, 724 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2013) (elaborating policy considerations supp......