Larry Kenneth Alexander v. John A. Hedback , 395 F. App'x 314 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                         United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 10-1667
    ___________
    Larry Kenneth Alexander,                  *
    *
    Appellant,                 *
    *
    v.                                 *
    *
    John A. Hedback, Trustee of the           *
    Bankruptcy Estate of Georgia              *
    Yvonne Stephens,                          *
    *
    Appellee.                  *
    ___________                            Appeals from the United States
    District Court for the
    No. 10-1855                            District of Minnesota and
    ___________                            the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel.
    *
    In re: G. Yvonne Stephens                 *
    *   [UNPUBLISHED]
    Debtor                     *
    *
    ---------------------------------------   *
    *
    G. Yvonne Stephens                        *
    *
    Appellant,                 *
    *
    v.                                 *
    *
    John A. Hedback, Trustee of the           *
    Bankruptcy Estate of G. Yvonne            *
    Stephens; Mary Jo A.                      *
    Jensen-Carter, Trustee of the              *
    Bankruptcy Estate of Larry                 *
    K. Alexander,                              *
    *
    Appellees.                    *
    ___________
    Submitted: October 4, 2010
    Filed: October 6, 2010
    ___________
    Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    In these consolidated appeals, Larry Alexander challenges the district court’s1
    order dismissing his action for a declaratory judgment as to his ownership of real
    property (No. 10-1667); and G. Yvonne Stephens challenges the order of the
    Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) affirming the bankruptcy court’s2 approval of a
    settlement between trustees regarding the same property (No. 10-1855).
    In No. 10-1667, we find that dismissal was proper for the reasons stated by the
    district court. See Followell v. United States, 
    532 F.3d 707
    , 708 (8th Cir. 2008) (de
    novo review). In No. 10-1855, we agree with the BAP’s analysis in all respects. See
    In re Vote, 
    276 F.3d 1024
    , 1026 (8th Cir. 2002) (court of appeals applies same
    1
    The Honorable Davis S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of
    Minnesota.
    2
    The Honorable Dennis D. O’Brien, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the
    District of Minnesota.
    -2-
    standard of review as BAP, reviewing bankruptcy court’s findings of fact for clear
    error, and its conclusions of law de novo). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R.
    47B.
    ______________________________
    -3-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-1667, 10-1855

Citation Numbers: 395 F. App'x 314

Judges: Loken, Murphy, Benton

Filed Date: 10/6/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/18/2024