Darwin Rice v. Commerce Bank , 271 F. App'x 538 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                   United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 07-1198
    ___________
    In Re: Darwin Gene Rice; Diane        *
    Carol Rice,                           *
    *
    Debtors.               *
    --------------------------------      *
    Darwin Gene Rice; Diane Carol Rice, *
    *
    Appellants,            *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                            * Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
    * for the Eighth Circuit.
    Carol F. Dunbar; Commerce Bank;       *
    The Farm Service Agency;              *     [UNPUBLISHED]
    Home State Bank;                      *
    *
    Appellees.             *
    ___________
    Submitted: March 13, 2008
    Filed: April 2, 2008
    ___________
    Before WOLLMAN, RILEY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Darwin and Diane Rice (the Rices) appeal from the decision of the Bankruptcy
    Appellate Panel affirming orders of the bankruptcy court.1 After careful review, see
    In re Vote, 
    276 F.3d 1024
    , 1026 (8th Cir. 2002) (stating a bankruptcy court’s factual
    findings are reviewed for clear error and its legal conclusions are reviewed de novo),
    we conclude (1) the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rices’
    motion for a continuance before the final hearing, because the reason for the
    continuance--the Rices’ decision to terminate their counsel’s services only days before
    the hearing, and to seek new legal counsel--was within their control, and the matter
    had been pending for a lengthy period of time; (2) the bankruptcy court did not err in
    denying confirmation of the Rices’ Chapter 12 plan based on the court’s finding the
    plan was not feasible; (3) the court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case
    given the length of time the case had been pending and the Rices’ repeated
    unsuccessful efforts to file a feasible plan; and (4) the court’s decision to pierce the
    corporate veil of the D & R Cattle Company was proper. The Rices’ challenge to the
    order lifting the automatic stay is moot.
    We affirm the judgment of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, see 8th Cir. R. 47B,
    and we deny the pending motion for a supersedeas bond as moot.
    ______________________________
    1
    The Honorable Lee M. Jackwig, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the
    Southern District of Iowa.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 07-1198

Citation Numbers: 271 F. App'x 538

Filed Date: 4/2/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023