Parrin v. Helms ( 1999 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
NOV 22 1999
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
In re: RICHARD STEVEN PARRIN
and CONSTANCE ANNE PARRIN,
Debtors.
No. 99-3023
(BAP No. KS-97-055)
RICHARD STEVEN PARRIN and (Bankr. No. 97-20238)
CONSTANCE ANNE PARRIN, (D. Kan.)
Appellants,
v.
BRENDA PORTER HELMS,
JANICE E. STANTON, and MARK
SCHOTTLER,
Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before ANDERSON , BARRETT , and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral
argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
Debtors Richard Steven Parrin and Constance Anne Parrin appeal the
bankruptcy court’s order denying their motion to enforce the 11 U.S.C. § 362
automatic stay in their bankruptcy proceeding. The Parrins filed personal Chapter
7 bankruptcy in the Kansas District Court. The Parrins are also the sole officers
and shareholders of Bodin Corporation, which is the debtor in an involuntary
Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding in the Northern District of Illinois. Defendants,
the trustee in the Bodin proceeding and trustee’s counsel, filed a motion to
compel the Parrins’ attendance at a Rule 2004 examination relating to the Bodin
estate. See Bankr. R. 2004. The Parrins sought to stay defendants’ motion,
invoking § 362’s automatic stay provisions. The bankruptcy court denied their
motion, concluding that the Rule 2004 examination in the Bodin proceeding was
not an action “against the debtor” in the Parrin’s personal bankruptcy proceeding.
See § 362(a). The Tenth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (the BAP) affirmed
the bankruptcy court’s order denying stay relief.
We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). The order denying the
Parrins’ motion to enforce the stay is a final order. See Eddleman v. United
-2-
States Dep’t of Labor , 923 F.2d 782, 784 (10th Cir. 1991), overruled in part on
other grounds , Temex Energy, Inc. v. Underwood, Wilson, Berry, Stein &
Johnson , 968 F.2d 1003 (10th Cir. 1992). As there are no disputed facts, we
review the BAP’s legal determinations de novo. See Phillips v. White (In re
White) , 25 F.3d 931, 933 (10th Cir. 1994). Upon review of the parties’
submissions, we affirm for substantially the reasons stated in the thorough
opinion issued by the BAP.
The judgment of the Tenth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel is
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Stephen H. Anderson
Circuit Judge
-3-