Summary
The Fifth Circuit affirmed orders approving and sustaining the sale of bankrupt estates’ assets, including the Fontainebleau Hotel and Spa, to Hotelerama. The court held that the bankruptcy court did not violate due process by determining the purchaser’s good-faith status without another evidentiary hearing, given the parties’ prior opportunities to present evidence. Because the sale was consummated without a stay and the purchaser was found to be in good faith, the appeals were moot under Bankruptcy Rule 805.
Holdings
- No additional evidentiary hearing was required before the bankruptcy court determined that Hotelerama was a good-faith purchaser because the appellants had already received due-process hearings, had multiple opportunities to present evidence, and identified no new evidence outside the existing record.
- The bankruptcy court's finding that Hotelerama was a good-faith purchaser was not clearly erroneous.
- The district court properly dismissed the appeals as moot because the sale had been consummated, Hotelerama was a good-faith purchaser, and no stay of the sale had been obtained.
- Any error in the district court's January 29, 1979 or February 5, 1979 orders was harmless because the bankruptcy court's good-faith finding and the June 29, 1978 mootness dismissal were otherwise proper.
Questions Presented
- Whether the bankruptcy court violated the appellants' due-process rights by finding that Hotelerama was a good-faith purchaser without conducting another evidentiary hearing on remand.
- Whether the bankruptcy court's good-faith-purchaser finding was clearly erroneous.
- Whether Bankruptcy Rule 805 required dismissal of the appeals as moot because the sale to a good-faith purchaser was consummated without a stay.
- Whether the district court properly dismissed the appeals from the bankruptcy court's remand order for lack of jurisdiction and denied Rule 60(b) relief.
- Whether any procedural error by the district court was harmless.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (18)
- Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 90 S. Ct. 1011, 25 L. Ed. 2d 287 (1970)(followed)
- Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 85 S. Ct. 1187, 14 L. Ed. 2d 62 (1965)(followed)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S. Ct. 893, 47 L. Ed. 2d 18 (1976)(followed)
- Christhilf v. Annapolis Emergency Hospital Ass'n, 496 F.2d 174, 179 (4th Cir. 1974)(followed)
- In re Bardwell, 610 F.2d 228 (5th Cir. 1980)(followed)
- In re Hammons, 614 F.2d 399 (5th Cir. 1980)(followed)
- In re Perimeter Park Investment Associates, 616 F.2d 150 (5th Cir. 1980)(followed)
- Martin v. Mercantile Financial Corp., 404 F.2d 886 (5th Cir. 1968)(followed)
- Lawrence Warehouse Co. v. McKee, 301 F.2d 4 (5th Cir. 1962)(followed)
- In re Multiponics, Inc., 622 F.2d 709, 723 (5th Cir. 1980)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 18.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…