Lutterodt et al v. Potter et al
OPINION. The bankruptcy court's order, signed on September 30, 2017 and entered on October 2, 2017, denying defendant-appellant Albert Lutterodt's request for attorneys fees is AFFIRMED. Lutterodt's 5 MOTION to Supplement Records on Appeal is GRANTED. (Ordered by Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 3/13/2018) (Judge Sidney A Fitzwater)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
IN RE ALBERT LUTTERODT,
JACKSON MILLER POTTER, et al.,
Civil Action No. 3:17-CV-2893-D
(Bank. Ct. No. 17-30208-HDH-13;
Adv. No. 17-3016)
APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FITZWATER, District Judge:
Defendant-appellant Albert Lutterodt (“Lutterodt”) appeals the bankruptcy court’s order,
signed on September 30, 2017 and entered on October 2, 2017, denying his request for attorney’s
“‘The court reviews the bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law de novo, but reviews its fact
findings only for clear error.’” In re Nary, 253 B.R. 752, 756 (N.D. Tex. 2000) (Fitzwater, J.)
(quoting In re ICH Corp., 230 B.R. 88, 91 n.10 (N.D. Tex. 1999) (Fitzwater, J.). “‘A finding of fact
is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court is left with
the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” In re Johnson Sw., Inc., 205
The court grants Lutterodt’s December 13, 2017 motion to supplement records on appeal
to the extent that the court supplements the record on appeal with the documents submitted with the
B.R. 823, 827 (N.D. Tex. 1997) (Fitzwater, J.) (quoting In re Placid Oil Co., 158 B.R. 404, 412
(N.D. Tex. 1993) (Fitzwater, J.)). “‘If the trier of fact’s account of the evidence is plausible in light
of the record viewed in its entirety, the appellate court may not reverse it.’” Id. (quoting Placid Oil,
158 B.R. at 412). “‘[T]his court does not find facts. Neither is it free to view the evidence
differently as a matter of choice.’” Id. (quoting Placid Oil, 158 B.R. at 412). “‘The bankruptcy
judge’s “unique perspective to evaluate the witnesses and to consider the entire context of the
evidence must be respected.”’” Id. (quoting Endrex Exploration Co. v. Pampell, 97 B.R. 316, 323
(N.D. Tex. 1989) (Fitzwater, J.)).
The bankruptcy court conducted an evidentiary hearing on Lutterodt’s motion and took the
matter under advisement. Thereafter, the bankruptcy court filed an order in which it carefully
explained its reasons for denying the request for attorney’s fees under each of Lutterodt’s theories.
Having considered the bankruptcy court’s order and the parties’ briefs, the court concludes that
Lutterodt has failed to demonstrate that the bankruptcy court erred as a matter of law, clearly erred
in making any pertinent fact finding, or abused its discretion in denying Lutterodt’s motion.2
Accordingly, the bankruptcy court’s order denying defendant’s request for attorney’s fees
March 13, 2018.
SIDNEY A. FITZWATER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Under § 205(a)(5) of the E-Government Act of 2002 and the definition of “written opinion”
adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United States, this is a “written opinion issued by the
court” because it “sets forth a reasoned explanation for [the] court’s decision.” It has been written,
however, primarily for the parties, to decide issues presented in this case, and not for publication in
an official reporter, and should be understood accordingly.
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?