Unpublished Dispositionnotice: Tenth Circuit Rule 36.3 States That Unpublished Opinions and Orders and Judgments Have No Precedential Value and Shall Not Be Cited Except for Purposes of Establishing the Doctrines of the Law of the Case, Res Judicata, or Collateral Estoppel.in Re Ava L. Bates, Ada C. Bates, and Theodore B. Bates, Debtors.ava L. Bates, Ada C. Bates, and Theodore B. Bates, Appellants, v. the Federal Land Bank of Wichita, Appellee, 932 F.2d 975 (10th Cir. 1991)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit - 932 F.2d 975 (10th Cir. 1991) May 16, 1991

Before LOGAN, JOHN P. MOORE and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

JOHN P. MOORE, Circuit Judge.


After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

This purports to be an appeal from a judgment of the district court affirming a bankruptcy court denying a motion to reopen a bankruptcy case. The district court noted that while the motion was filed in the bankruptcy case of Ava Louise Bates, Ada C. Bates and Theodore B. Bates attempted to join the appeal. Nonetheless, the district court voided the futile joinder effort and affirmed the bankruptcy court's refusal to reopen the case of Ava Louise Bates. The district court held that debtor failed to establish the bankruptcy court had abused its discretion in denying the motion to reopen. Because it is evident that the only reason the debtor advanced to reopen the case is to re-litigate matters previously litigated to judgment, we agree with the district court's analysis.

AFFIRMED.

 *

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir.R. 36.3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.