In Re John Eugene Chavez & Joan Marie Sloan, Debtors. Joan Marie Sloan v. Albrecht Hoffman, Tr., 13 F.3d 404 (10th Cir. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
In Re John Eugene Chavez & Joan Marie Sloan, Debtors. Joan Marie Sloan v. Albrecht Hoffman, Tr., 13 F.3d 404 (10th Cir. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
49 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 14 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: STEFANOV v. MCINTYRE (insd, 2023-02-14)
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) STEFANOV v. MCINTYRE
S.D. Ind. · 2023 · confidence medium
Indeed, this is the only conduct by Officer McIntyre that Mr. Stefanov's claims could be focused on because it is his only conduct other than the initial encounter while Mr. Stefanov was in his car, and Mr. Stefanov has dismissed any claims related to that timeframe. [Filing No. 54.] Indeed, Mr. Stefanov frames his right as Officer McIntyre "falsely reporting [that Mr. Stefanov] held a firearm in his car when he did not," which he claims caused the FPD to falsely arrest and unlawfully detain him. [See Filing No. 74 at 3.] It is Mr. Stefanov's burden to show that his right to be free from a fal…
discussed Cited "see" Plater v. Bowers
W.D. Okla. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bunton v. Gunter, 13 F.3d 404 (Table), No. 93-1204, 1993 WL 492981, at *3 (10th Cir. Nov. 30, 1993) (holding that the defendant’s equal protection claim was conclusory and unsupported by underlying facts because the inmate failed to specify that other inmates with similar conduct records had received different treatment).
cited Cited "see" Fawley v. Lujan-Grisham
D.N.M. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Brady v. Tansy, 13 F.3d 404 (10th Cir. 1993) (rejecting due process claim).
cited Cited "see" Fawley v. GEO Group, Inc.
10th Cir. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See Brady v. Tansy, 13 F.3d 404 (10th Cir.1993) (unpublished table decision).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Hunter v. Beck
10th Cir. · 2007 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Maghe v. Koch, 107 F.3d 21 (10th Cir.1997), Brooks v. Oklahoma Pardon & Parole Bd., 13 F.3d 404 (10th Cir.1993).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re Norton
Bankr. D. Utah · 2005 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See e.g., Cooper v. Kramer (In re Cooper), 153 B.R. 898, 900 (D.Colo.1993) (holding that Frieouf allows a court to permanently enjoin debtors from obtaining a future discharge of a certain debt owed to a creditor), aff'd 13 F.3d 404 (10th Cir.1993) (table), 1993 WL 523197 (10th Cir.1993) (unpublished). 8 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re Casse
Bankr. E.D.N.Y. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
Bank (In re Jolly), 143 B.R. 383, 387-88 (E.D.Va.1992), aff’d, 45 F.3d 426 (4th Cir.1994); In re Earl, 140 B.R. at 741 ; see also Cooper v. Kramer (In re Cooper), 153 B.R. 898, 901 (D.Colo.) (recognizing Frieouf as a doubtful and unpopular decision), aff'd, 13 F.3d 404 (10th Cir.1993).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Leavitt v. Soto (In Re Leavitt)
9th Cir. BAP · 1997 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also In re Cooper, 153 B.R. 898, 900 (D.Colo.) (recognizing that Frieouf decision is doubtful and unpopular), aff 'd, 13 F.3d 404 , 1993 WL 523197 (10th Cir.1993).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re John Eugene Chavez and Joan Marie Sloan, Debtors. Joan Marie Sloan
v.
Albrecht Hoffman, Trustee
93-1263.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Nov 24, 1993.
13 F.3d 404
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

13 F.3d 404

NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order.

In re John Eugene CHAVEZ and Joan Marie Sloan, Debtors.
Joan Marie SLOAN, Appellant,
v.
Albrecht HOFFMAN, Trustee, Appellee.

No. 93-1263.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Nov. 24, 1993.

Before TACHA, BALDOCK and KELLY, Circuit Judges.[2]

ORDER AND JUDGMENT[1]

1

Debtor Joan Marie Sloan, appearing pro se, appeals the district court's order affirming the bankruptcy court's award of fees to the trustee and his counsel. She alleges that: (1)the bankruptcy trustee and his counsel were not entitled to receive payment for their services to the estate because of substantial abuses committed by the trustee and his counsel, and (2) the bankruptcy court abused its discretion by permitting the trustee on appeal to retain estate monies in a non-interest-bearing account. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291.

2

The record before us reflects that the trustee and his counsel acted reasonably in light of the information Debtor made available to them. See In re Melenyzer, 140 B.R. 143, 155 (Bankr.W.D. Tex.1992). Therefore, we hold that the bankruptcy court's fee award was not an abuse of discretion.

3

With regard to monies held in a non-interest-bearing account to cover the administrative expenses pending this appeal, it is within the trustee's discretion whether to place funds in an interest-bearing account as long as funds do not remain idle for a long period of time. In re E.F. Hutton Southwest Properties II, Ltd., 953 F.2d 963, 974 (5th Cir.1992); In re J & J Record Distributing Co., 84 B.R. 864 (E.D.Pa.1988). See also 11 U.S.C. 345(a); H.R. Rep. No. 95-595, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 331 (1977) (general policy of Bankruptcy Code is to separate bankruptcy court from involvement in estate administration), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5787, 6287. Therefore, the bankruptcy court's approval of the trustee's motion to place the funds in a non-interest-bearing account was unnecessary because placement of the funds was entirely within the trustee's discretion. Although the court's approval was unnecessary, it cannot be characterized as an abuse of discretion, especially in light of the fact that the court was merely giving the trustee permission to take an action entirely within the trustee's discretion.

4

AFFIRMED.

2

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case therefore is ordered submitted without oral argument

1

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3