Case ID: f-appx_121/html/0056-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of ALTMAN NURSING, INC., Debtor, Clay Capital Corp; Avi Dan, Appellants, v. Gerrit M. Pronske; Gerrit M. Pronske PC., Appellees.
    No. 04-10461.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Feb. 15, 2005.
    Stanford Edward Purser, Evan Stotsenburg Tilton, Hughes & Luce, David John Schenck, Jones Day, Dallas, TX, for Appellants.
    Theodore J. Riney, Geary, Porter & Donovan, Addison, TX, for Appellees.
    Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

In this bankruptcy appeal, the contest is between Clay Capital Corp. (Clay), a claimant in the Altman Nursing, Inc. bankruptcy proceeding, and Clay’s lawyer in that proceeding, Gerrit M. Pronske (Pronske). Clay contends in this appeal that Pronske violated professional and fiduciary obligations Pronske owed to it in handling the funds Pronske was hired to collect for Clay. Although Clay asserted some of the facts underlying its claims of ethical/professional breaches in the bankruptcy court, it did not articulate the legal basis for these claims as clearly as it could have and the bankruptcy court did not consider them. The district court refused to consider these arguments because they were not adequately raised in the bankruptcy court. Because these arguments involve the alleged misconduct of a member of the bar of this court, we conclude that they deserve a hearing so that a fact finder can determine whether Pronske violated his professional duties to his client and if so, whether and in what amount Clay is entitled to recover from the sums Pronske collected.

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s judgment and REMAND this case to the district court with instructions to REMAND it to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

REMANDED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.