Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06292/USCOURTS-ca10-90-06292-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 422
Nature of Suit: Bankruptcy Appeals Rule 28 USC 158
Cause of Action: 

---

., 

·c LED 

L' Court of Appea\s ,·Jnited States • ;r , - "tenth C1r0l-· 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

1d\R .. 1 ,99 

ROBERT L. r!OECKER 

In re: DARWIN JOHN MORETTI) 

and MORITA MORETTI, ) 

Debtors, 

) 

) 

) 

------------------------------) 

DARWIN JOHN MORETTI and 

MORITA MORETTI, 

Appellees, 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

LUMBERMEN'S INVESTMENT CORP., ) 

Appellant. 

) 

) 

.. Clerk 

No. 90-6292 

(D.C. No. CIV-90-224-T) 

(W.D. Oklahoma) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppal. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-6292 Document: 010110031061 Date Filed: 03/01/1991 Page: 1 
J 

' ,. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This is an appeal from an order of the district court sitting 

as an appellate court in bankruptcy. A creditor, Lumbermen's 

Investment Corp., asserts the district court erred in affirming 

the bankruptcy court's confirmation of the debtors' chapter 13 

plan. We disagree. 

The creditor asserts two issues. First, it is contended that 

the plan improperly permits the bifurcation of the creditor's 

claim contrary to the provisions of 11 u.s.c. § 1322(b)(2). This 

issue has recently been decided to the contrary in Hart v. 

Eastland Mortgage Co., F.2d __ , 1991 WL 3364 (10th Cir. 

1991). Next, the creditor contends its debt was not subject to 

the provisions of the plan because the debtors exempted from the 

bankruptcy estate the property subject to the creditor's claims. 

This issue was not raised in the district court; therefore, we 

will not consider it for the first time on appeal. Baker v. Penn 

Mut. Life Ins. Co., 788 F.2d 650, 663 (10th Cir. 1986). 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-6292 Document: 010110031061 Date Filed: 03/01/1991 Page: 2