Case ID: f-appx_251/html/0864-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM: \n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of: BELL FAMILY TRUST, Debtor. Mary Susan Bell; Sue Bell Holdings, L.L.C., Appellants v. W. Simmons Sandoz, Appellee.
    No. 06-30768.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Sept. 19, 2007.
    Allan L. Durand, Lafayette, LA, for Appellants.
    Jeffrey Edward Ackermann, Durio, McGoffin, Stagg & Ackerman, Lafayette, LA, for Appellee.
    Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

This case originates out of a bankruptcy filing by the Bell Family Trust (the “Trust” or “Debtor”). Plaintiff-appellee W. Simmons Sandoz, the trustee of the Debtor’s estate, brought this proceeding against defendants-appellants Mary Sue Bell (“Ms.Bell”) and Bell Holdings, L.L.C. seeking to avoid certain transactions between the Debtor and defendants and to recover property from defendants. After a bench trial, the bankruptcy court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Defendants appealed, and the district court affirmed the judgment. Ms. Bell has multiple arguments as to why the bankruptcy court committed error. The judgment must be modified for the reasons given below. In all other respects, the judgment of the district court is affirmed for essentially the reasons given by the bankruptcy court, as affirmed by the district court.

1. The $162,214.96 awarded in item number 1 of the bankruptcy court judgment was calculated including the $60,000.00 cash retainer referenced in item number 3 of the judgment and therefore the award, to that extent, is duplicative. Appellee agrees that the award is duplicative. The judgment should be modified so that the award of $60,000 is stricken and the $162,214.96 is upheld.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.