In the Matter Of: Glenda Marie Morrell, Debtor. Calcasieu Marine Nat'l Bank v. Glenda Marie Morrell, 880 F.2d 855 (5th Cir. 1989). · Go Syfert
Search
In the Matter Of: Glenda Marie Morrell, Debtor. Calcasieu Marine Nat'l Bank v. Glenda Marie Morrell, 880 F.2d 855 (5th Cir. 1989). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
33 citation events (15 in the last 25 years) across 17 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In re Johnson, 548 B.R. 770 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2016)
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989 2007 2026
Statutes interpreted (leading-cases list)
#2 28 U.S.C. § 158(d) cited 1× in this case · 11 total citations of statute
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 856 Analyzing bank account freeze under automatic stay17 citing casesbankruptcy court’s order was not final where it found a bank in violation of the automatic stay and ordered it to turn over the debt- or’s funds, but withheld determination of damages1 citing court put it this way
  • In re Johnson, 548 B.R. 770 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2016).published
    See Guy v. Dzikowski (In re Atlas), 210 F.3d 1305, 1308 (11th Cir.2000) (holding that an order awarding attorneys’ fees and costs under 11 U.S.C. § 362 (h) (now § 362(k)) for violation of the automatic stay while “consider[ing] the possibi…
  • Eden Place v. Sholem Perl, 545 B.R. 1120 (9th Cir. 2016).published
    See In re Atlas, 210 F.3d at 1307-08 ; In re Fugazy Express, Inc., 982 F.2d 769 , 774-76 (2d Cir.1992); Matter of Morrell, 880 F.2d 855, 856-57 (5th Cir.1989); In re Brown, 803 F.2d 120 , 121-23 (3d Cir.1986).
  • United States Dep't of Agric. v. Sexton, 529 B.R. 667 (W.D. Va. 2015).published
    “Determinations of liability without an assessment of damages are as likely to cause duplicative litigation in bankruptcy as they are in civil litigation; and because bankruptcy litigants may appeal to district as well as to appellate cour…
  • Richard DeLauro v. Ralph F. Porto, 645 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2011).published
    See, e.g., Brandon, Jones, Sandall, Zeide, Kohn, Chalal & Musso, P.A. v. MedPartners, Inc., 312 F.3d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir.2002) (“In this Circuit, a request for attorneys’ fees pursuant to a contractual clause is considered a substantive i…
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Jones, 391 B.R. 577 (E.D. La. 2008).published
    Matter of Morrell, 880 F.2d 855, 856-57 (5th Cir.1989) (quoting Liberty Mutual Ins.
  • In Re Thomas James Dyer, Debtor. Nancy Knupfer, Tr. v. John Lindblade, in Re Thomas James Dyer, Debtor, John Lindblade v. Nancy Knupfer, Tr., 322 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2003).published
    State Employees Credit Union (In re Brown), 803 F.2d 120, 121-23 (3d Cir.1986) (order establishing liability under § 362(h) but not quantifying *1187 damages was not final); Calcasieu Marine Nat'l Bank v. Morrell (In re Morrell), 880 F.2d…
  • Wilkins v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 58 S.W.3d 176 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001).published
    Calcasieu Marine Nat’l Bank v. Morrell (In re Morrell), 880 F.2d 855, 856 (5th Cir.1989) (citing 1 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY § 3.03[6][b] at 3-181 (1989)).
  • Allapattah Servs., Inc. v. Exxon Corp., 157 F. Supp. 2d 1291 (S.D. Fla. 2001).published
    Co. v. Wetzel, 424 U.S. 737, 742 , 96 S.Ct. 1202, 1205-06 , 47 L.Ed.2d 435 (1976) (no final, appealable judgment where “respondents, although having received a favorable ruling on the issue of petitioner’s liability to them, received none…
  • Matter of U.S. Abatement Corp., 39 F.3d 563 (5th Cir. 1994).published
    Calcasieu Marine Nat'l Bank v. Morrell (In re Morrell), 880 F.2d 855, 856-57 (5th Cir.1989); Shimer v. Fugazy (In re Fugazy Express, Inc.), 982 F.2d 769, 775 (2d Cir.1992).
  • United States Abatement Corp. v. Mobil Expl. & Producing U.S. Inc., 39 F.3d 563 (5th Cir. 1994).published
    Calcasieu Marine Nat’l Bank v. Morrell (In re Morrell), 880 F.2d 855, 856-57 (5th Cir.1989); Shimer v. Fugazy (In re Fugazy Express, Inc.), 982 F.2d 769, 775 (2d Cir.1992).
Show 7 more citing cases
bankruptcy court order finding a creditor liable for violating the automatic stay but not determining damages due under Sec. 362(h) is not a final orderno pin page on record · 4 citing cases listed
  • In Re Integrated Resources, Inc., 3 F.3d 49 (2d Cir. 1993).published
    (bankruptcy court order finding a creditor liable for violating the automatic stay but not determining damages due under Sec. 362(h) is not a final order)
  • Off. Comm. of Subordinated Bondholders v. Integrated Resources, Inc. (In re Integrated Resources, Inc.), 3 F.3d 49 (2d Cir. 1993).published
    (bankruptcy court order finding a creditor liable for violating the automatic stay but not determining damages due under § 362(h) is not a final order)
  • In Re Fugazy Express, Inc., 982 F.2d 769 (2d Cir. 1992).published
    (bankruptcy court order finding a creditor liable for violating the automatic stay but not determining damages due under § 362(h) is not a final order)
  • Shimer v. Fugazy, 982 F.2d 769 (2d Cir. 1992).published
    (bankruptcy court order finding a creditor liable for violating the automatic stay but not determining damages due under § 362(h) is not a final order)
At page 857 “determinations of liability without an assessment of damages are as likely to cause duplicative litigation in bankruptcy as they are in civil litigation; and because bankruptcy litigants may appeal to district as well as to appellate courts, the waste of judicial resources is likely to be greater.”1 citing case1 citing court quotes it
  • Abdul-Malik v. Washington Mut. Servicing (In Re Abdul-Malik), 335 B.R. 476 (3d Cir. 2005).unpublished
    Calcasieu Marine Nat’l Bank v. Morrell (In re Morrell), 880 F.2d 855, 857 (5th Cir.1989); see also United States v. Corrick, 298 U.S. 435, 440 , 56 S.Ct. 829 , 80 L.Ed. 1263 (1936) (appellate court has jurisdiction to determine if district…
At page 855 holding that a bankruptcy court's order was not final where assessment of damages pursuant to § 362(h) remained to be resolved1 citing case1 citing court put it this way
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter Of: Glenda Marie MORRELL, Debtor. CALCASIEU MARINE NATIONAL BANK, Appellant,
v.
Glenda Marie MORRELL, Appellee
88-4642.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Aug 22, 1989.
Published opinion
880 F.2d 855
1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 12478
1989 WL 87135
Mary L. Fullington, Henri Martinez, Wade N. Kelly, Lake Charles, La., Thad D. Minaldi, Sulphur, La., for appellant., Gerald J. Casey, Morris & Casey, Lake Charles, La., for appellee.
Clark, Rubin, Davis.
Cited by 26 opinions  |  Published
ALVIN B. RUBIN, Circuit Judge:

This is another of the many cases presented to us in which the parties shout “I appeal” before they have established their right to do so. Their mere desire, even when mutually shared, to have a second court review an order is not enough to open the appellate gates. The bankruptcy court judgment appealed from was not final, and we therefore dismiss the appeal.

[*856] I.

Glenda Marie Morrell is a wage earner who is not engaged in business. She filed a bankruptcy petition under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code attaching a Chapter 13 Plan. The Plan proposed payments to her creditors over a 36-month period, and listed Calcasieu Marine National Bank among the unsecured creditors, each of whom was to be paid approximately 25% of its claim. The Plan stated that the amount due the bank was $450.56. Morrell later amended her Plan to list the bank as a secured creditor, to be paid in full, but only after the events recited below.

On the date of filing Morrell had $606.16 in her cheeking account at the bank and owed the bank between four and five hundred dollars. To evidence the bank’s loan to her, she had given the bank a promissory note that pledged her bank account as security for her indebtedness. In addition, the bank asserts that it had a statutory lien on the account by virtue of Louisiana law. [1] Three days after filing her petition, Morrell deposited her weekly earnings of $400 in the account and she again deposited her $400 paycheck a week thereafter.

In the two weeks after she filed her bankruptcy petition, without requesting permission from the bankruptcy court to use the funds in her account, Morrell drew checks on the account totaling at least $609.88. These checks therefore exhausted the $606.16 balance that was in her account at the time she filed her bankruptcy petition. On the day the bank learned of Mor-rell’s bankruptcy filing, her account had a net balance of $503.40, which had accrued solely by virtue of her postpetition deposits. The bank immediately placed an “administrative freeze” on $437.52 of the funds in the account, sending Morrell a certified letter to advise her of this action.

The bankruptcy court that initially considered this case held that the bank had violated the automatic stay of the Bankruptcy Code [2] by imposing the administrative freeze on Morell’s bank account. The court ordered the bank to turn over Mor-rell’s funds, and, in response to Morrell’s motion for “damages, including costs and attorney’s fees, and punitive damages under 11 U.S.C. 362(h),” ordered the bank to reimburse her for the $130 in charges she had incurred because the bank had refused to honor her checks. The court also ruled orally:

The other matters sought in the motion by the debtor for contempt, damages, costs and attorney’s fees, are in my view ... probably the province of an adversary proceeding. So, the court is not going to rule on those matters, in — at this time. But the bank is found to be in contempt of the automatic stay, and ... [t]he order of contempt will be effective ten days after the service thereof.

The district court affirmed the order of the bankruptcy court in all respects.

II.

The Supreme Court has stated that “where assessment of damages or awarding of other relief remains to be resolved [judgments] have never been considered to be ‘final’ within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1291.” [3] The concept of finality employed to determine appealability under the Bankruptcy Code is “open to a more liberal interpretation” than that applicable to civil litigation governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1291, [4] but this liberality stems from practicality, and is limited by it in turn. [5] Determinations of liability without an assessment of damages are as likely to cause duplicative litigation in bankruptcy as they are in civil[*857] litigation, and because bankruptcy litigants may appeal to district as well as to appellate courts, the waste of judicial resources is likely to be greater. The rule for appeals from bankruptcy decisions determining liability but not damages under 28 U.S. C. § 158(d) must therefore be the same as the rule under § 1291. [6] We hold that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the bankruptcy court’s order, and because the district court lacked jurisdiction, we do also. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

The facts we have recited have been gleaned from a record that may be supplemented on remand.

III.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is DISMISSED.

1

. See L.S.A.-R.S. 6:316.

3

. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Wetzel, 424 U.S. 737, 744, 96 S.Ct. 1202, 1206, 47 L.Ed.2d 435 (1976). See also, e.g., Garzaro v. University of Puerto Rico, 575 F.2d 335, 337 (1st Cir.1978); Laclede Gas Co. v. Amoco Oil Co., 531 F.2d 942, 943 (8th Cir.1976).

4

. 1 Collier on Bankruptcy § 3.03[6][b] at 3-181 (1989).

5

. See, e.g., In re Jeannette Corp., 832 F.2d 43, 46 (3d Cir.1987); In re Brown, 803 F.2d 120 (3d Cir.1986).

6

. Cf. Jeannette, 832 F.2d at 46; Brown, 803 F.2d at 120.