Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6
 
961 F.2d 219 NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored,unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on amaterial issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oralargument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of  November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order.
In re Robert Eugene EDWARDS and Mary Priscilla Edwards,Debtors.Robert Eugene EDWARDS and Mary Priscilla Edwards,Appellants,v.Steve H. MAZER, Trustee, Appellee.
 No. 91-2139.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
 April 20, 1992.
Before JOHN P. MOORE, TACHA and BRORBY, Circuit Judges.ORDER AND JUDGMENT
*
BRORBY, Circuit Judge.1After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determinedunanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determinationof this appeal. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The cause istherefore ordered submitted without oral argument.2This is an appeal from a district court order affirming a bankruptcy court'sapproval of a proposed settlement in a state court case.3Debtors were engaged in state court litigation with the State of New Mexico.Debtors had contracted with the State to perform certain construction work atSugarite Canyon State Park for approximately $898,000. Debtors received
 
APPENDIXIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT$850,000 and the state retained $46,000 for liquidated damages. Debtors feltthey would recover $600,000 in damages.4After Debtors entered Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, the Trustee negotiated a proposedsettlement of the state court litigation in which $25,000 would be paid toDebtors' estate. Following notice, the Bankruptcy Court held a hearing on theTrustee's Motion to Approve Settlement. No oral testimony was offered at thehearing. Basically, the hearing involved a discussion between the attorneys, theTrustee, and the Bankruptcy Judge. However, the Bankruptcy Court did acceptand file, without objection, two affidavits which subsequently provided theunderpinnings of the Bankruptcy Court's factual findings and order approvingthe settlement. The Bankruptcy Court's decision was affirmed by the DistrictCourt in a thorough six-page Memorandum Opinion and Order.5Debtors now appeal, asserting no evidence exists to support the BankruptcyCourt's findings of fact. Debtors argue the findings of fact are clearly erroneous because they are unsupported.The District Court said it best:6The affidavits submitted at the hearing and filed of record support the findingof the Bankruptcy Court that the settlement amount had a rational relationshipto the amount that could be claimed under the contract.7Debtors' brief ignores the two affidavits and asserts "no documentary evidencewas offered or received as evidence."8The record on appeal fails to support Debtors' argument. Appellee'sSupplemental Appendix sets forth the affidavits and attached exhibits of RobertM. Findling and Van H. Gilbert. The record clearly reflects both documentswere filed with the Bankruptcy Court and were before the Bankruptcy Court.9We therefore AFFIRM the decision of the District Court for substantially thesame reasons set forth in the District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order of May 14, 1991, a copy of which is attached. The mandate shall issueforthwith.
 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICOIN RE ROBERT EUGENE EDWARDS and MARY PRISCILLA EDWARDS,Debtors.ROBERT EUGENE EDWARDS, and MARY PRISCILLA EDWARDS,Appellants,vs.STEVE H. MAZER, Trustee, Appellee.CIVIL NO. 90-1081-M/RWMMay 14, 1991MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 1011121314On Appeal From Proceedings Under Chapter 7.15Debtors/Appellants Robert and Mary Edwards (the Edwards) filed a voluntary petition for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy on May 19, 1989. An Order converting thecase to a Chapter 7 was entered on May 2, 1990. This matter is presently beforethe Court on the Edwards' appeal from a decision of the United StatesBankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico approving a settlementagreement between the Trustee and the State of New Mexico. Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). After a review of the memoranda of the parties, the applicable law and the record on appeal, the Court FINDS that theOrder of the Bankruptcy Court should be affirmed.16The settlement agreement approved by the Bankruptcy Court involves civillitigation pending in the District Court of Santa Fe County, captioned Edwardsv. State of New Mexico, et al. The litigation arose out of a construction contractat Sugarite Canyon State Park. Debtor Robert Edwards received over $850,000in payment on the $897,602 contract amount and the state retainedapproximately $46,000 for liquidated damages or penalties. Mr. Edwards'Complaint sought over 4.6 million in damages and the state defendantscounterclaimed against Mr. Edwards.17On July 23, 1990, the Trustee filed a Motion for Leave to Settle all Claims inthe state court case for $25,000. A hearing on the trustee's motion was held on November 1, 1990. Two affidavits were filed by the Trustee without objection by the debtors. Counsel for the parties made statements and discussed the

Ihre Neugier belohnen

Alles, was Sie lesen wollen.
Jederzeit. Überall. Auf jedem Gerät.
Keine Verpflichtung. Jederzeit kündbar.
576648e32a3d8b82ca71961b7a986505