In Re: Brockaway ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                                            Opinions of the United
    2008 Decisions                                                                                                             States Court of Appeals
    for the Third Circuit
    12-24-2008
    In Re: Brockaway
    Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
    Docket No. 07-2858
    Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
    Recommended Citation
    "In Re: Brockaway " (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 44.
    http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/44
    This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
    University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
    NOT PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 07-2858
    ___________
    IN RE: BROCKAWAY PRESSED METAL, INC.,
    Debtor
    EYNON ASSOCIATES, INC.,
    Appellant
    v.
    LASALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION;
    GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION; BORGWARNER TORQ
    TRANSFER SYSTEMS, INC.; DELPHI CORPORATION
    ____________________________________
    On Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Pennsylvania
    (D.C. No. 07-cv-00563)
    District Judge: Honorable Terrence F. McVerry
    _________________________
    Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
    on December 8, 2008
    Before: MCKEE, SMITH AND ROTH, Circuit Judges
    (Opinion filed: December 24, 2008)
    ___________
    OPINION
    ___________
    McKee, J.
    Eynon Associates, Inc. appeals the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy
    court’s denial of Eynon’s claim to funds held by LaSalle Bank. For the reasons that
    follow, we will affirm.
    Inasmuch as we write primarily for the parties who are familiar with this case, we
    need not repeat the procedural or factual history except insofar as may be helpful to our
    brief discussion.
    Eynon argues that it is entitled to the disputed escrow funds pursuant to its contract
    for sales commissions with the debtor, Brockway Pressed Metals, Inc. According to
    Eynon, the disputed funds are impressed with either an express or constructive trust for
    that portion of Brockway’s receivables equal to the commissions Eynon earned on
    products that it sold and delivered to certain of Brockway’s customers.
    In a Memorandum Opinion dated March 30, 2007, Hon. Thomas P. Agresti,
    explained why Eynon had not established the existence of a trust. In affirming the
    bankruptcy court’s order denying relief, the district court agreed that Eynon “faile d to
    demonstrate two of the four required elements [of a trust] - intent to create a trust and the
    existence of an identifiable res.” App. 6. The district court concluded that “the series of
    2
    commission agreements between the parties do not constitute ‘trust’ documents.” App. 7.
    The court rejected Eynon’s reliance on Williams v. Finlaw, Mueller & Co., 
    141 A. 47
     (Pa.
    1928), concluding, counsel was “skating close to the bounds of their duty of candor. . .,”
    by misstating the holding of Williams. . .”. The bankruptcy court believed that Williams
    counseled against finding a trust had been created, and the district court concluded that
    “[t]he Bankruptcy Court’s analysis of Williams, was correct.” App. 4.
    The district court also correctly affirmed the bankruptcy court’s rejection of the
    theory of a “constructive trust” because “no unjust enrichment had occurred.” 
    Id.,
     (citing
    Yohe v. Yohe, 
    353 A.2d 417
    , 420-21 (Pa. 1976)). Thus, establishing a trust over the
    disputed funds “would have the effect of giving Eynon preferential treatment in the
    bankruptcy proceeding.” App. 5.
    We can add little to the thorough and thoughtful discussion of the bankruptcy
    court, or the district court’s explanation of why the bankruptcy court properly rejected
    Eynon’s claim for relief.
    Accordingly, we will affirm substantially for the reasons set forth by the
    bankruptcy court and the district court.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-2858

Filed Date: 12/24/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021