Modern Boats, Inc., In re, 84-3844
| Decision Date | 31 October 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-3844,84-3844 |
| Citation | 775 F.2d 619 |
| Parties | , 13 Collier Bankr.Cas.2d 1045, 13 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 1389, Bankr. L. Rep. P 70,829 In re MODERN BOATS, INC., Debtor. SLAY WAREHOUSING CO., INC., Appellant, v. MODERN BOATS, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Thomas A. Connelly, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.
Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre, John J. Broders, New Orleans, La., for appellee.
Before GARZA, JOHNSON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Slay Warehousing urges us to declare void the district court's judgment affirming an order of the bankruptcy court. Slay's sole complaint is that the bankruptcy court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to order it to turn over the M/V MODERN, which appellee Modern Boats owned. Slay bottoms its argument on the fact that before Modern Boats filed a petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code an admiralty court had acquired in rem jurisdiction over the vessel. Slay had brought the action to enforce a maritime lien. Because we agree with the district court that the admiralty case did not preclude jurisdiction in the bankruptcy court, we affirm.
In re Louisiana Ship Management, 761 F.2d 1025 (5th Cir.1985) (per curiam), announced the principles that govern disposition of this appeal. The Court there held that the bankruptcy debtor's filing of a petition for reorganization automatically stayed any action to enforce a maritime lien against a vessel that the debtor owned on the petition date. 761 F.2d at 1026 (citing 11 U.S.C. Sec. 362(a)(5) (1982)). More important for purposes of this appeal, the Court also held that the filing "vested exclusive jurisdiction over the vessel in the court where the Title 11 proceeding was pending, depriving the admiralty court of jurisdiction over it." Id; see 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1334(d) (West Supp.1985) ().
The admiralty court's previous acquisition of in rem jurisdiction thus did not defeat the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction in this case. On the contrary, the petition for reorganization withdrew jurisdiction from the admiralty court and lodged it exclusively in the district court--"the court where the Title 11 proceeding was pending". The bankruptcy court inherited that jurisdiction when the district court referred the case to it under 28 U.S.C.A. Sec. 157(a) (West Supp.1985). Cf. Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Good Hope Refineries, 604 F.2d 865, 869 (5th Cir.1979) ().
Slay also contends for the first time upon this appeal that article III of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Millenium Seacarriers, Inc.
...are without power to establish and enforce such liens, so they are without power to displace them."). But see In re Modern Boats, Inc., 775 F.2d 619, 620 (5th Cir.1985) (holding that the "admiralty court's previous acquisition of in rem jurisdiction . . . did not defeat the bankruptcy court......
-
Landry v. Exxon Pipeline Co.
...42 (Emphasis added) 43 110 F.3d 1261 (7th Cir.1997) 44 Id., 110 F.3d at 1268; c.f., Slay Warehousing Co., Inc. v. Modern Boats, Inc. (In re Modern Boats, Inc.), 775 F.2d 619 (5th Cir. 1985) (filing of bankruptcy vested in rem jurisdiction in bankruptcy court although claim against the prope......
-
Chao v. Hospital Staffing Services
...of the debtor as of the commencement of such case, and of property of the estate." 28 U.S.C. § 1334(e); see also In re Modern Boats, Inc., 775 F.2d 619, 620 (5th Cir. 1985). However, the exclusivity of the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction reaches only as far as the automatic stay provisions ......
-
In re Citx Corp.
...This provision affords a bankruptcy court exclusive control over property belonging to the debtor, see, e.g., In re Modern Boats, Inc., 775 F.2d 619 (5th Cir.1985); In re Newport Creamery, Inc., 293 B.R. 293 (Bankr.D.R.I.2003), and this exclusive jurisdiction is transferred to the bankruptc......