Cofield v. First Wisconsin ( 1996 )

USCA1 Opinion

        September 16, 1996      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 96-1097



                                JAMES E. COFIELD, JR.,



                                      Appellant,



                                          v.



                            FIRST WISCONSIN TRUST COMPANY,



                                      Appellee.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                    [Hon. Richard G. Stearns, U.S. District Judge]
___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                               Selya, Boudin and Stahl,

                                   Circuit Judges.
______________



                                 ____________________



            James E. Cofield, Jr. on brief pro se.
_____________________

            Alan  B. Rubenstein,  Mary  L.  Gallant  and Rackemann,  Sawyer  &
___________________   _________________      _____________________

        Brewster on brief for appellee.
________





                                 ____________________





                                 ____________________





































                      Per  Curiam.   Appellant  James E.  Cofield appeals
___________



            from  the  judgment  of  the  district  court  affirming  the



            bankruptcy court's dismissal of  his chapter 11 petition "for



            cause."   See 11  U.S.C.    1112(b).   We  have reviewed  the
___



            record  and the  briefs  on appeal  and  affirm the  district



            court's judgment  for essentially  the reasons stated  in the



            Memorandum and Order, dated  December 14, 1995.  We  add only



            two comments.



                      1.  The bankruptcy  court was entitled to consider,



            and  rule  on,  the  practicability  of  appellant's proposed



            reorganization plan  in determining  whether  his chapter  11



            petition  was filed in bad  faith for purposes  of   1112(b).



            See In re  MacElvain, 160  B.R. 672 (Bankr.  M.D. Ala.  1993)
___ ________________



            (bankruptcy   court  reviewed,  and   found  inadequate,  the



            proposed reorganization plan in deciding whether to dismiss a



            chapter 11  petition under    1112(b)),  aff'd, 180 B.R.  670
_____



            (M.D. Ala. 1995).



                      2.    As  for  the correctness  of  the  bankruptcy



            court's  factual findings,  appellant's  only  contention  on



            appeal  is that  there was  no support  for such  findings as



            "argued in the briefs in the district court."  A reference to



            lower court pleadings is  insufficient to preserve for appeal



            the  question of  the correctness  of the  bankruptcy court's



            findings.  See Gilday v. Callahan, 59 F.3d 257, 273 n.23 (1st
___ ______    ________



            Cir. 1995)  (a reference  to arguments  made in the  district







                                         -2-



























            court is  not sufficient to warrant  appellate review), cert.
_____



            denied,  116 S.Ct. 1269  (1996).  Thus,  appellant has waived
______



            the issue on appeal.



                      Affirmed.  See Local Rule 27.1.
________   ___



























































































                                         -3-