Henderson v. Van Buren Industrial Investors, L.L.C. ( 2005 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-12464 SEPTEMBER 12, 2005
Non-Argument Calendar THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket Nos. 03-00537-CV-FTM-33-SPC
and 02-16887-9P1
IN RE:
JAMES BRONCE HENDERSON, III,
Debtor.
__________________________________________________________________
JAMES BRONCE HENDERSON, III,
Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant,
versus
VAN BUREN INDUSTRIAL INVESTORS, L.L.C.,
Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
_________________________
(September 12, 2005)
Before BIRCH, DUBINA and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
DCT Incorporated, an automotive sub-component supplier, entered into a
ten year lease with the appellee, Van Buren Industrial Investors, L.L.C. (“Van
Buren”), for a 345,000 square foot industrial building located in metropolitan
Detroit, effective December 1, 1999. The debtor/appellant, James Bronce
Henderson, III, was DCT’s principal officer and guaranteed DCT’s obligations
under the lease. In February 2002, DCT’s creditors placed the company in
involuntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and DCT stopped paying rent for the building.
In August 2002, Henderson filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Subsequently, Van
Buren filed a claim (Claim No. 71) in Henderson’s bankruptcy proceedings for
unpaid rent and other charges due under the lease as guarantor. The bankruptcy
court allowed Van Buren’s claim, but applied the one year cap under 11 U.S.C. §
502(b)(6). The district court then affirmed. Henderson appeals, and we also
affirm.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). “[W]e independently
examine the factual and legal determinations of the bankruptcy court and employ
the same standards of review as the district court.” In re Int’l Admin. Servs., Inc.,
408 F.3d 689, 698 (11th Cir. 2005). Specifically, we review the district court’s
2
and bankruptcy court’s factual findings for clear error, In re Cox, 338 F.3d 1238,
1241 (11th Cir. 2003), and the legal conclusions de novo. In re Int’l Admin.
Servs., Inc., 408 F.3d at 698.
After an evidentiary hearing, the bankruptcy court concluded that
Henderson’s objections lacked merit and correctly found that: Henderson is bound
by the plain terms of the lease and is liable to Van Buren as guarantor; the amount
of rent specified in the lease provided evidence of the fair market value for the
building space; Van Buren satisfied its duty to mitigate its damages caused by the
breach; and judicial estoppel does not apply. Upon review, the district court
agreed with these findings. We too have reviewed the record and find no clear
error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court, which affirms the
judgment of the bankruptcy court.
AFFIRMED.
3