Sladek v. Zeman , 44 F. App'x 448 ( 2002 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
AUG 29 2002
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
In re: DENNIS SLADEK and DIANA
SLADEK,
Debtors,
No. 01-1517
______________________________ (D.C. No. 00-K-1469)
(D. Colorado)
DIANA SLADEK,
Appellant,
v.
SALLY J. ZEMAN, Chapter 13
Trustee,
Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before HENRY and HOLLOWAY , Circuit Judges, and BRORBY , Senior
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This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Diana Sladek appeals from the district court’s order affirming rulings of the
bankruptcy court in the underlying case. She contends that the bankruptcy court
erred in disallowing two exemptions from the debtors’ bankruptcy estate for
claims involving the probate of her father’s estate in Florida. She also challenges
the bankruptcy court’s ruling granting a motion of the trustee to reconvert the
case from Chapter 13 to Chapter 7. She asserts that the district court erred in
affirming these decisions.
We have jurisdiction over this appeal by virtue of 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(d) and
1291. See Conn. Nat’l Bank v. Germain , 503 U.S. 249, 252 (1992). Our review
of the bankruptcy court’s legal determinations is de novo and its factual findings
are reviewed for clear error. Phillips v. White (In re White) , 25 F.3d 931, 933
(10th Cir. 1994). “It is especially important to be faithful to the clearly erroneous
standard when the bankruptcy court’s findings have been upheld by the district
court.” Osborn v. Durant Bank & Trust Co. (In re Osborn) , 24 F.3d 1199, 1203
(10th Cir. 1994).
After careful review of the parties’ briefs and appendices in light of the
applicable law and appellate standards, we conclude that the district court
correctly decided this case. Therefore, for substantially the reasons set out in the
-2-
district court’s order dated October 12, 2001, the judgment of the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado is AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Wade Brorby
Senior Circuit Judge
-3-