Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

In Re: v. Hill, 97-9006 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 97-9006 Visitors: 3
Filed: Feb. 04, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Appellant.Appellees., _____________, Burdick DiLeo, P.C., Robert A. Fasanella, Peter A. Wilson and Fasanella, Johnson , ____________________ ________________ _____________________, Wood, P.C.offer to purchase the state action for a larger gross sum.estate to accept such risk.F.3d 582 (7th Cir.
USCA1 Opinion












[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________

No. 97-9006

IN RE:

Moorhead Corporation, MLX Corporation & First
Heidie's Inc.

Debtors.
____________________

MARIA HILL,

Appellant.

v.

JOHN A. BURDICK, JR.,

Chapter 7 Trustee,
and Friends of Russells Mills, Inc.,

Appellees.
____________________

APPEAL FROM THE BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL

OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________

Maria K. Hill on brief pro se. _____________
Burdick & DiLeo, P.C. on brief for appellee John A. Burdick, Jr., _____________________
Chapter 7 Trustee.
Robert A. Fasanella, Peter A. Wilson and Fasanella, Johnson & ____________________ ________________ _____________________
Wood, P.C. on brief for appellees, Friends of Russells Mills, Inc. __________
____________________

FEBRUARY 4, 1998
____________________














Per Curiam. We have carefully reviewed the record and __________

briefs on appeal and affirm the judgment of the bankruptcy

court. The only issue raised below, thus the only issue

properly before us, is whether the bankruptcy court abused

its discretion in approving the compromise, given appellant's

offer to purchase the state action for a larger gross sum.

In re LaRoche, 969 F.2d 1299, 1305 (1st Cir. 1992). At the _____________

time the compromise was approved, the record showed that

conveying the cause of action to appellant, rather than

compromising the action, would subject the bankruptcy estate

to risk of indeterminate magnitude. Under the circumstances,

the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in

determining that it would not be in the best interests of the

estate to accept such risk. Jeffrey v. Desmond, 70 F.3d 183, _______ _______

185 (1st Cir. 1995); Depoister v. Holloway Foundation, 36 _________ ___________________

F.3d 582 (7th Cir. 1994).

Affirmed. Loc. R. 27.1. ________



















-2-






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