In Re: Banks , 233 F. App'x 143 ( 2007 )

Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
4-20-2007
In Re: Banks
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-1847
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"In Re: Banks " (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 1240.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/1240
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 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
BLD-84 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NOS. 06-1847, 06-1851, & 06-1852
________________
IN RE: FREDERICK H. BANKS,
Debtor
FREDERICK H. BANKS,
Appellant
v.
RON A. LABELLA
__________________
IN RE: FREDERICK H. BANKS,
Debtor
FREDERICK H. BANKS,
Appellant
v.
BETTY JO LARGENT; DKT
__________________
IN RE: FREDERICK H. BANKS,
Debtor
FREDERICK H. BANKS,
Appellant
v.
BANK ONE, N.A.
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. Nos. 05-cv-00612, 05-cv-00616, 05-cv-00617)
District Judge: Honorable Joy Flowers Conti
_______________________________________
Submitted For Possible Dismissal Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or Summary Action
Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
December 29, 2006
Before: MCKEE, FUENTES AND ROTH, CIRCUIT JUDGES
(Filed April 20, 2007)
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM
On November 1, 2001, Frederick H. Banks filed for bankruptcy protection under
Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. The appointed trustee in bankruptcy filed a report of
no assets. In 2005, Banks filed many adversary actions, including the three at issue in
these related appeals. The Bankruptcy Court, holding that it lacked subject-matter
2
jurisdiction over these adversary actions (and others that we do not presently consider)
because they related only to post-petition acts unrelated to the administration of Banks’
bankruptcy case, dismissed them. Banks appealed to the District Court. The District
Court affirmed the order dismissing the adversary actions. Banks appeals.
The District Court had jurisdiction to review the Bankruptcy Court’s order
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a), and we have jurisdiction to review the District Court’s
order under 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) & 1291. We exercise the same standard of review as the
District Court, subjecting the Bankruptcy Court’s legal determinations to plenary review
and reviewing its factual findings for clear error. See In re United Healthcare Sys., 396
F.3d 247, 249 (3d Cir. 2005).
We will summarily affirm because no substantial question is presented on appeal.
See L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6. The Bankruptcy Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction
over the three listed adversary actions.1 Two statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334 and 157,
provide the source of a bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction. See Binder v. Price Waterhouse
& Co., 372 F.3d 154, 161 (3d Cir. 2004). Under these statutes, and relevant to our
analysis here, a bankruptcy court has jurisdiction over those cases “‘at least “related to”
the bankruptcy.’” In re Marcus Hook Dev. Park, Inc., 943 F.2d 261, 266 (3d Cir. 1991)
1
Although Banks took issue in the District Court with the Bankruptcy Court’s action to
dismiss his adversary actions sua sponte, as the District Court explained, the Bankruptcy
Court was obligated to evaluate its jurisdiction and dismiss the actions over which it
lacked jurisdiction.
3
(citations omitted). Litigation is related to a bankruptcy if its outcome could “conceivably
have any effect on the estate being administrated in bankruptcy.” See Pacor, Inc. v.
Higgins, 743 F.2d 984, 994 (3d Cir. 1984); see also In re Marcus Hook Dev. Park, Inc.,
943 F.2d at 264 (stressing the term “conceivably”). More specifically, an action is related
to bankruptcy if its outcome “could alter the debtor’s rights, liabilities, options, or
freedom of action (either positively or negatively) and which in any way impacts upon the
handling and administration of the bankruptcy estate.” See Pacor, 743 F.2d at 994. The
three adversary actions were unrelated to bankruptcy because, as Banks plainly alleged in
his complaints, the supposed wrongs occurred in 2002 and 2003, at the earliest, after he
had filed for bankruptcy protection. Accordingly, they are not property of the bankruptcy
estate such that their resolution would affect the handling or administration of the estate.
See In re Bobroff, 766 F.2d 797, 803 (3d Cir. 1985) (citing 11 U.S.C. § 541 for the
proposition that “the only property interests of a debtor that become part of the estate are
those existing ‘as of the commencement of the case.’”)
In sum, because the Bankruptcy Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, we will
affirm the order insomuch as it dismissed the three listed adversary actions.
4