United Joint Venture, LP v. Emerson Noble

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant United Joint Venture, LP. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam.

Case: 12-16371

Date Filed: 07/15/2013

Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 12-16371
Non-Argument Calendar
_____________
D.C. Docket Nos. 5:12-cv-00250-WTH; 6:06-bk-03120-ABB

JAMES BRUCE JENNINGS,
Debtor.
_____________________________________________________________

UNITED JOINT VENTURE, LP,
Plaintiff- Appellant,
versus
EMERSON C. NOBLE,
Defendant -Appellee.
____________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
____________
(July 15, 2013)
Before HULL, JORDAN, and HILL, Circuit Judges.

Case: 12-16371

Date Filed: 07/15/2013

Page: 2 of 4

PER CURIAM:
The appellant in this appeal is an unsecured creditor of a bankruptcy estate,
United Joint Venture, L.P. (United). The debtor is James Bruce Jennings (Debtor).
The appellee is the bankruptcy trustee, Emerson C. Nobel (Trustee). 1
In 2011, the Trustee filed a Chapter 7 Report Of No Distribution (Report).
By this, he sought to convert the case to a no asset case, to discharge his fiduciary
duties, and to abandon scheduled assets back to the Debtor.
United objected to the Report on the basis that it failed to list, identify or
administer a $363,698.55 Michigan Judgment against United, listed on Debtor=s
Schedule B (Michigan Judgment), as an asset and a liability. 2 United offered
$10,000.00, for the Michigan Judgment, in settlement. Third party SCR Joint
Venture, L.P. (SCR) also offered to buy the bankrupt estate=s interest in the
Michigan Judgment from the Trustee for $10,000.00. The Trustee refused to
pursue the settlement or the purchase requests, and filed his Report.

1

The Trustee did not file a brief in this appeal.

2

The Michigan Judgment arose out of United=s action against the Debtor and three other
defendants in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The final
judgment awarded $255,367.29, to United against the Debtor; $125,000.00 to the Debtor against
United; and attorney=s fees and costs to the Debtor and his co-defendants in the amount of
$238,698.55, against United.
2

Case: 12-16371

Date Filed: 07/15/2013

Page: 3 of 4

United objected to the Trustee=s abandonment of the Michigan Judgment,
arguing that this creates a potential windfall for the Debtor, to the detriment of the
bankruptcy estate, and United. The bankruptcy court conducted a hearing, and,
without comment, overruled United=s objection to the Trustee=s Report. At the
hearing, the Trustee testified that the bankruptcy estate had no interest in the
Michigan Judgment, scheduled by the Debtor. United argued that this was a
complete reversal of the Trustee=s earlier position on the issue.
United appealed the bankruptcy court=s decision to the district court. The
Trustee argued in his brief to the district court that he deemed the $10,000.00, in
question to be inconsequential to the estate. 3 See 11 U.S.C. ' 554(a). United
argued that the bankruptcy court erred when it failed to conduct an evidentiary
hearing, and made no findings of fact or conclusions of law. The district court
disagreed.
The district court determined that the amount of general unsecured claims
filed in Debtor=s estate approximated $540,000.00. Had the entire $10,000.00,

3

United claims that the Trustee did not make this argument to the bankruptcy court.

3

Case: 12-16371

Date Filed: 07/15/2013

Page: 4 of 4

been received into the estate, for pro rata distribution to unsecured creditors,
United, and others, would have received less than two cents on the dollar. 4
Under 11 U.S.C. ' 554(a), the bankruptcy court gives deference to the
business judgment of the Trustee. The district court found that the Trustee=s
decision not to pursue the $10,000.00 as inconsequential, was made in good faith,
upon a reasonable basis, and within the scope of his authority under the
Bankruptcy Code. We agree.
Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
AFFIRMED.

4

This estimated sum is calculated before any trustee=s fees, attorney=s fees and costs to be
incurred in the distribution.

4