Somerset Regional Water v. (2020)

Our conclusion is further supported by In re Allegheny Health Education & Research Foundation, where we determined that an adversary proceeding requesting a bankruptcy court interpret and enforce its own sale orders “was a core proceeding because it required the court to interpret and give effect to its previous sale orders.” 383 F.3d 169 , 174–76 (3d Cir. 2004); cf. In re Somerset Reg’l Water Res., LLC, 949 F.3d 837, 844 (3d Cir. 2020) (dispute asking bankruptcy court to in…

On appeal, “we stand in the shoes of the District Court and apply the same standard of review” which it was bound to apply, meaning that “[w]e review the bankruptcy court’s legal determinations de novo, its factual findings for clear error, and its discretionary decisions for abuse of discretion.” In re Somerset Reg’l Water Res., LLC, 949 F.3d 837, 844 (3d Cir. 2020) (internal citation omitted).

On appeal, “we stand in the shoes of the District Court and apply the same standard of review” which it was bound to apply, meaning that “[w]e review the bankruptcy court’s legal determinations de novo, its factual findings for clear error, and its discretionary decisions for abuse of discretion.” In re Somerset Reg’l Water Res., LLC, 949 F.3d 837, 844 (3d Cir. 2020) (internal citation omitted).

In re Somerset Reg’l Water Res., LLC, 949 F.3d 837, 844 (3d Cir. 2020).

Appellant argues that it substantially contributed to ACCJ’s 10 Id. (citing In re Somerset Reg’l Water Res., LLC, 949 F.3d 837, 844 (3d Cir. 2020)). 11 Appellant argues in passing that “the District Court improperly rejected Katchen’s arguments showing how his work for RLT substantially contributed to ACCJ’s bankruptcy petition,” but Appellant does not further elaborate on this point.

In re Somerset Reg’l Water Res., LLC, 949 F.3d 837, 844 (3d Cir. 2020).

In our review of the Bankruptcy Court’s decision, “‘we stand in the shoes of the District Court’ and apply the same standard of review.” In re Somerset Reg’l Water Res., LLC, 949 F.3d 837, 844 (3d Cir. 2020) (quoting In re Glob.

In re Somerset Reg’l Water Res., LLC, 949 F.3d 837, 845 (3d Cir. 2020).

“On appeal, we stand in the shoes of the District Court . . . .” In re Somerset Reg’l Water Res., LLC, 949 F.3d 837, 844 (3d Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Therefore, when the Bankruptcy Court hears testimony from witnesses, this Court must give “due regard to the opportunity of that court to judge first-hand their credibility,” In re Somerset Reg’l Water Res., LLC, 949 F.3d 837, 844 (3d Cir. 2020) (internal quotation omitted), because the Bankruptcy Court is “best positioned to assess the facts, particularly those related to credibility and purpose,” In re Myers, 491 F.3d 120, 126 (3d Cir. 2007).

A court considering such an appeal “review[s] the bankruptcy court’s legal determinations de novo, its factual findings for clear error, and its discretionary decisions for abuse of discretion.” In re Imerys Talc Am., Inc., 38 F.4th 361, 370 (3d Cir. 2022) (quoting In re Somerset Reg’l Water Res., LLC, 949 F.3d 837, 844 (3d Cir. 2020)).

“Under Pennsylvania law, ‘a contract is ambiguous if it is reasonably susceptible of different constructions and capable of being understood in more than one sense.’” In re Somerset Reg’l Water Res., LLC, 949 F.3d 837, 845 (3d Cir. 2020).

A. The Bankruptcy Court Properly Exercised Jurisdiction Over the Enforcement Motion “Bankruptcy courts have limited statutory jurisdiction under the Bankruptcy Code and limited constitutional jurisdiction under Article UI.” In re Somerset Reg’l Water Res., LLC, 949 F.3d 837, 844 (3d Cir. 2020) (citing Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462, 473-74, 482 (2011)).

Upon appeal from the Bankruptcy Court to the District Court, the District Court “review[s] the bankruptcy court’s legal determinations de novo, its factual findings for clear error, and its discretionary decisions for abuse of discretion.” In re Imerys Talc Am., Inc., 38 F.4th 361, 370 (3d Cir. 2022) (quoting In re Somerset Reg’l Water Res., LLC, 949 F.3d 837, 844 (3d Cir. 2020)).

A district court considering such an appeal “review[s] the bankruptcy court’s legal determinations de novo, its factual findings for clear error, and its discretionary decisions for abuse of discretion.” In re Imerys Talc Am., Inc., 38 F.4th 361, 370 (3d Cir. 2022) (quoting In re Somerset Reg’l Water Res., LLC, 949 F.3d 837, 844 (3d Cir. 2020)).

In re Somerset Reg’l Water Res., LLC, 949 F.3d 837, 846 (3d Cir. 2020) (“To resolve a contract’s ambiguity, we look to extrinsic or parol evidence . . .”).

Water Res., LLC, 949 F.3d 837, 844 (3d Cir. 2020)).

Since the Bankruptcy Court heard firsthand testimony from witnesses, “we give due regard to the opportunity of that court to judge first-hand their credibility.” In re Somerset Regional Water Resources, LLC, 949 F.3d 837, 844 (3d Cir. 2020).

A term is ambiguous if it is “reasonably susceptible of different constructions and capable of being understood in more than one sense.” In re Somerset Reg’l Water Res., LLC, 949 F.3d 837, 845 (3d Cir. 2020) (quoting Schwab v. Pennsummit Tubular, LLC (In re Old Summit Mfg., LLC), 523 F.3d 134, 137 (3d Cir. 2008) (quoting Hutchison v. Sunbeam Coal Corp., 519 A.2d 385, 390 (Pa. 1986))).

A contract is ambiguous under Pennsylvania law “if it is reasonably susceptible of different constructions and capable of being understood in more than one sense.” In re Somerset Regional Water Resources, LLC, 949 F.3d 837, 845 (3d Cir. 2020) (quoting In re Old Summit Mfg., LLC, 523 F.3d 134, 137 (3d Cir. 2008)).

In re Somerset Reg’l Water Res., LLC, 949 F.3d 837, 844 (3d Cir. 2020) (citing Schepis v. Burtch (In re Pursuit Capital Mgmt., LLC), 874 F.3d 124 , 133 n.14 (3d Cir. 2017)).