HeatherwoodHoldings, LLC v. HGC, Inc.
MEMORANDUM OPINIONAND ORDER DISMISSING CASE that this court concurs with the bankruptcy's court's final amended judgment and the judgment is affirmed, the costs of these proceedings are taxed to the appellants as more fully set out in order. Signed by Judge C Lynwood Smith, Jr on 10/24/2012. Associated Cases: 2:11-cv-02902-CLS, 2:11-cv-02903-CLS(AHI)
2012 Oct-24 PM 03:49
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
HEATHERWOOD HOLDINGS, L.L.C.,
FIRST COMMERCIAL BANK,
Civil Action No. CV-11-S-2902-S
Civil Action No. CV-11-S-2903-S
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
These consolidated matters are before the court on the appeals filed by
Heatherwood Holdings, L.L.C., and First Commercial Bank, respectively, from a final
amended judgment entered by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern
District of Alabama on August 10, 2011.1 Appellants contest the bankruptcy court’s
conclusion that the real property at issue in this case is subject to an implied
See doc. nos. 1-10 and 1-11. This court consolidated the two appeals in an order
entered on Nov. 30, 2011. See doc. no. 14 in case no. 2:11-cv-02902-CLS; doc. no. 13 in case
restrictive covenant that restricts the property to use as a golf course.2 Jurisdiction
over the appeal is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a).
A district court assumes the role of an appellate court when reviewing the
decision of a bankruptcy court. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). A bankruptcy court’s
findings of fact must be upheld on appeal, unless determined to be clearly erroneous.
See Bankr. R. 8013; In re Downtown Properties, Ltd., 794 F.2d. 647, 651 (11th Cir.
1986). A bankruptcy court’s finding of fact is deemed to be clearly erroneous when,
even though there is evidence in the record to support the finding, “the reviewing
court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake
has been committed.” United States v. U.S. Gypsum, 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). On
the other hand, a bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law are reviewed under a de novo
standard of review. See In re Kalter, 292 F.3d 1350, 1352 (11th Cir. 2002).
Applying the foregoing standards, and following a careful consideration of the
entire record in this case, the cases relied upon by the bankruptcy court, and the
parties’ briefs, this court concurs with the bankruptcy’s court’s final amended
judgment. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. The costs of these proceedings are
taxed to the appellants. The Clerk is directed to close both of the files referenced in
See doc. no. 1-9 (Amended Memorandum Opinion), at 65. The concept of an implied
restrictive covenant is referred to in Alabama appellate decisions by various terms, including
“restrictive covenant by implication,” “reciprocal negative easement,” or “implied servitude.” See,
e.g., Collins v. Rodgers, 938 So. 2d 379, 385 (Ala. 2006).
DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of October, 2012.
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?