GIBSON et al v. TUCKER
||PAUL GIBSON, SR. and MELINDA HART
||WILLIAM J. TUCKER
||G&S LIVESTOCK COMPANY
||April 20, 2012
||Indiana Southern District Court
||Terre Haute Office
||Mark J. Dinsmore
|Nature of Suit:
||Bankruptcy Appeal (801)
|Cause of Action:
||28:0158 Notice of Appeal re Bankruptcy Matter (BA
|Jury Demanded By:
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|September 5, 2012
CLOSED DISMISSED - ORDER - The Court concludes that the Bankruptcy Court had the statutory authority to enter final judgment on the Trustee's fraudulent transfer claim against the Defendants but lacked the constitutional authority to do so pursu ant to Article III. However, the Defendants either expressly or by their conduct consented to the Bankruptcy Court entering judgment on those claims. Therefore, the Bankruptcy Court's judgment, [dkt. 14-6], was final. Because the Court furt her concludes that the Bankruptcy Court did not abuse its discretion by finding that the Defendants did not possess excusable neglect to file a belated notice of appeal, the judgment of the Bankruptcy Court is affirmed and this appeal is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Trustee's Motion to Dismiss Appeal 13 for Failure to Comply with Bankruptcy Rule 8006 is DENIED AS MOOT. The Motion for Leave to Appeal 1 , is also DENIED AS MOOT because it was ruled on by the Bankruptcy Court in the underlying proceedings and is erroneously listed as a pending motion on this Court's docket. (See Order.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 9/5/2012.(RSF)
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system.
A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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.