Jeff Tucker v. Barry Mukamal

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Jeff Tucker. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 14-15245

Date Filed: 05/24/2016

Page: 1 of 5

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-15245
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 1:13-cv-24332-KAM, 04-bkc-13319-AJC

In re: JEFF TUCKER,
Debtor.
________________________________________________________________
JEFF TUCKER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
BARRY E. MUKAMAL,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(May 24, 2016)

Case: 14-15245

Date Filed: 05/24/2016

Page: 2 of 5

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JULIE CARNES and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jeff Tucker declared Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2004. Two years later, he
entered into a court-approved agreement with the bankruptcy estate’s trustee, Barry
E. Mukamal (the “Trustee”), to settle certain debts against his estate in exchange
for his discharge in bankruptcy. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Tucker
agreed that if he failed to pay the Trustee $700,000 to settle his outstanding debts,
the Trustee could revoke the bankruptcy discharge and claim a parcel of property
Tucker owned. Tucker failed to pay, so in 2011 the bankruptcy court revoked his
discharge and ordered the property transferred to the Trustee. With the approval of
the bankruptcy court, the Trustee transferred the property by quitclaim deed to a
third party, Arthaus Investments, LLC (“Arthaus”). The following year, Arthaus
filed an action to quiet title on the property in state court. Tucker answered by
denying Arthaus’s superior interest in the property and cross-claimed against the
Trustee, alleging that the Trustee fraudulently obtained the deed to the property.
In 2013, before the state court had ruled on the action to quiet title and
Tucker’s cross-claims, the Trustee moved to conclude administration of the
bankruptcy proceedings. The bankruptcy court—noting that both parties agreed
that the proceedings were due to be closed—granted the motion and directed the

2

Case: 14-15245

Date Filed: 05/24/2016

Page: 3 of 5

Trustee “to close this case and issue a final report.” Omnibus Order, Doc. 667 at 2,
In re Tucker, No. 1:04-bk-13319-AJC (Bankr. S.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2013).
Seven days later, before the Trustee had done as directed, Arthaus moved
the bankruptcy court for an order ratifying the sale of the property to Arthaus and a
determination that Tucker could not proceed against the Trustee in a separate
adversary proceeding. The Trustee joined in the motion. After a hearing, the
bankruptcy court issued an order ratifying the sale and ordering Tucker to dismiss
his cross-claims against the Trustee without prejudice pursuant to the so-called
“Barton doctrine,” which requires a debtor to obtain leave of the bankruptcy court
before suing his trustee. See Carter v. Rodgers, 220 F.3d 1249, 1252 (11th Cir.
2000) (discussing the holding in Barton v. Barbour, 104 U.S. 126 (1881)).
Tucker appealed the bankruptcy court’s order to the district court, mounting
three challenges: (1) the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to enter its order
because the bankruptcy proceedings were closed; (2) because the bankruptcy case
was closed, Arthaus could not move to ratify the sale without first moving to
reopen the proceedings; and (3) the Barton doctrine was inapplicable to Tucker’s
cross-claim against the Trustee. The district court rejected each of Tucker’s
challenges and affirmed the bankruptcy court’s order.
Tucker appeals the district court’s order. After review, we find no reversible
error in that order and accordingly affirm. In light of the fact that we previously
3

Case: 14-15245

Date Filed: 05/24/2016

Page: 4 of 5

have ruled on an appeal arising from Tucker’s bankruptcy proceedings, see Tucker
v. Mukamal (“Tucker I”), 616 F. App’x 969 (11th Cir. 2015), we pause to discuss
one issue. In Tucker I, Tucker challenged the bankruptcy court’s order granting
the Trustee’s motion to conclude administration of the bankruptcy proceeding.
This Court held that Tucker lacked standing to challenge the order because it was
undisputed that the estate was deficient and Tucker therefore would not be affected
directly by the closure of the case. Id. at 972. We also noted that, even if Tucker
had standing to challenge the order, he had waived his challenge by conceding
before the bankruptcy court that the case was due to be closed. Id. at 973.
Now Tucker’s challenges hinge on the effect of the bankruptcy court’s order
concluding the administration of the proceedings. We note that, although that
order directed the Trustee to close the case and file a final report, the Trustee had
not done so when Arthaus filed its motion to ratify the sale of property. Instead,
the Trustee and Tucker continued to file motions and responsive pleadings about
the Arthaus sale and other matters in the bankruptcy court. Indeed, due to ongoing
disputes between the parties, the Trustee did not file a final report that triggered
closure of the case until February 2015, approximately 18 months after the
bankruptcy court ordered the proceedings closed. So the bankruptcy court’s
adjudication of the motion to ratify the sale occurred well before the case finally

4

Case: 14-15245

Date Filed: 05/24/2016

Page: 5 of 5

was closed. Tucker’s actions in the bankruptcy court reflect that understanding, 1
and we therefore are not persuaded by his claim on appeal that the district court
lacked jurisdiction to accept Arthaus’s motion, hold a hearing, and issue an order
ratifying the sale.
For the reasons set forth here and in the district court’s well-reasoned order,
we affirm.
AFFIRMED.

1

Tucker noted at the hearing on the motion to ratify that the bankruptcy court had
ordered the case closed, and the bankruptcy court invited him to file a motion addressing the
impact of that fact if indeed there was such an impact. Tucker failed to file any such motion.
5