Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Cofield v. First Wisconsin, 96-1097 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 96-1097 Visitors: 38
Filed: Sep. 16, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: , _____________________, Alan B. Rubenstein, Mary L. Gallant and Rackemann, Sawyer , ___________________ _________________ _____________________, Brewster on brief for appellee.argued in the briefs in the district court.court is not sufficient to warrant appellate review), cert.
USCA1 Opinion












September 16, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________


No. 96-1097

JAMES E. COFIELD, JR.,

Appellant,

v.

FIRST WISCONSIN TRUST COMPANY,

Appellee.

____________________


APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Richard G. Stearns, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

____________________

Before

Selya, Boudin and Stahl,
Circuit Judges. ______________

____________________

James E. Cofield, Jr. on brief pro se. _____________________
Alan B. Rubenstein, Mary L. Gallant and Rackemann, Sawyer & ___________________ _________________ _____________________
Brewster on brief for appellee. ________


____________________


____________________


















Per Curiam. Appellant James E. Cofield appeals ___________

from the judgment of the district court affirming the

bankruptcy court's dismissal of his chapter 11 petition "for

cause." See 11 U.S.C. 1112(b). We have reviewed the ___

record and the briefs on appeal and affirm the district

court's judgment for essentially the reasons stated in the

Memorandum and Order, dated December 14, 1995. We add only

two comments.

1. The bankruptcy court was entitled to consider,

and rule on, the practicability of appellant's proposed

reorganization plan in determining whether his chapter 11

petition was filed in bad faith for purposes of 1112(b).

See In re MacElvain, 160 B.R. 672 (Bankr. M.D. Ala. 1993) ___ ________________

(bankruptcy court reviewed, and found inadequate, the

proposed reorganization plan in deciding whether to dismiss a

chapter 11 petition under 1112(b)), aff'd, 180 B.R. 670 _____

(M.D. Ala. 1995).

2. As for the correctness of the bankruptcy

court's factual findings, appellant's only contention on

appeal is that there was no support for such findings as

"argued in the briefs in the district court." A reference to

lower court pleadings is insufficient to preserve for appeal

the question of the correctness of the bankruptcy court's

findings. See Gilday v. Callahan, 59 F.3d 257, 273 n.23 (1st ___ ______ ________

Cir. 1995) (a reference to arguments made in the district



-2-













court is not sufficient to warrant appellate review), cert. _____

denied, 116 S. Ct. 1269 (1996). Thus, appellant has waived ______

the issue on appeal.

Affirmed. See Local Rule 27.1. ________ ___













































-3-






Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer