Dwight H. Matlack v. Linda Jane Gaul, No. 06-15723 (11th Cir. 2007)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT September 5, 2007 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK No. 06-15723 D. C. Docket Nos. 06-60299-CV-CMA 95-24079-BKC-JK In Re: LINDA JANE GAUL, Debtor, __________________________________________________________________ DWIGHT H. MATLACK, LINDA MCVEIGH MATLACK, Plaintiffs-Appellants, versus LINDA JANE GAUL, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (September 5, 2007) Before DUBINA and MARCUS, Circuit Judges, and PROCTOR,* District Judge. PER CURIAM: This is an appeal from the district court s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court s order denying the Matlack s request for relief from stay. The basis of the bankruptcy court s ruling was that the settlement agreement between the parties was an executory contract since the debtor s obligation included a possible payment to the Matlacks of the sum of $200,000 and was not merely an obligation to transfer property to them. The district court entered a well-reasoned order affirming the bankruptcy court s order but held that both the settlement agreement and the underlying contract were executory. The Matlacks then perfected this appeal. We review factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and conclusions of law de novo. In Re: Bilzerian, 153 F.3d 1278, 1281 (11th Cir. 1998). After reviewing the record and reading the parties briefs, we agree with the district court s finding that both the settlement agreement and the terms of the contract were executory. We also reject the Matlack s contention that the _____________________ *Honorable R. David Proctor, Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, sitting by designation. 2 bankruptcy court rendered an advisory opinion or otherwise deprived the Matlacks of due process. Likewise, we reject the Matlack s claim for judicial estoppel as they have failed to demonstrate the existence of any perversion of justice. Finally, we agree with the district court s finding that the Matlacks waived their bad faith argument since they failed to present that argument to the bankruptcy court. For the above-stated reasons, we affirm the district court s judgment affirming the bankruptcy court s order. AFFIRMED. 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.
