Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01103/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01103-0/pdf.json

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

---

.. 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

IN RE: ROMAN G. WENINGER and 

MARY MADELEINE WENINGER, 

Debtors. 

CORAL L. SILVEY, 

Creditor-Appellant, 

FI LED 

United States C.ourt of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

F~B 11 91 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-1103 

(D.C. No. 90-Z-437) 

(D. Colo.) 

LEON M. WENINGER, 

Appellee, 

ROMAN G. WENINGER and MARY 

MADELEINE WENINGER, 

Debtors-Appellees, 

ROBERT SEVERSON, 

Trustee-Appellee. 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and TACHA, 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 estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-1103 Document: 010110098415 Date Filed: 02/01/1991 Page: 1 
' 

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

submitted without oral argument. 

Coral Silvey appeals prose from a district court order that 

dismissed several appeals from bankruptcy court orders as 

interlocutory and affirmed a bankruptcy court order finding Silvey 

in contempt and imposing sanctions. We affirm in part1 and 

reverse in part, and remand to the bankruptcy court for further 

proceedings. 

Silvey is a creditor of the bankrupts, Roman and Mary 

Weninger (the debtors). Their son, Leon Weninger, is also a 

creditor. The debtors had a longstanding dispute with the 

Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Before the IRS could hold a tax 

sale of farm property and equipment to which the debtors 

apparently had at least colorable title, the debtors filed for 

bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court granted the IRS relief from the 

stay, the sale proceeded, and the property and equipment were 

purchased by the debtor's son, Leon, apparently in March 1989. It 

appears that the debtors' relationship with Leon is less than 

amicable. Silvey and the debtors have consistently maintained 

that Silvey has owned the subject property since 1978. Title to 

1 Silvey's prose brief on appeal is rambling and disjointed. 

Viewing it most charitably to her, as we must, we do not believe 

that she is challenging that portion of the district court's order 

holding interlocutory all appeals but the one based on contempt. 

In any event, we agree with the district court that these orders 

are not now appealable, and we affirm their dismissal. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-1103 Document: 010110098415 Date Filed: 02/01/1991 Page: 2 
and interests in the property are apparently subject to an 

adversary proceeding before another bankruptcy judge, the details 

of which do not appear in the record before us. 

The bankruptcy judge here issued two orders dated November 9 

and November 30, 1989, which prohibited Silvey or her agents from 

visiting the residence or regular place of business of Leon 

Weninger. Although the record is unclear, it is reasonable to 

infer that the business property to which the bankruptcy court 

referred is the property in which both Silvey and Leon claim an 

interest. It is undisputed that Silvey and her agents did violate 

this order by going onto the business property of Leon, causing 

damage to his ability to carry on his business. After a hearing, 

the bankruptcy court held Silvey in civil contempt for her 

noncompliance and ordered Silvey to pay Leon's attorney's fees 

incurred in prosecuting the contempt, damages sustained to his 

property, and further ordered "that in order to ensure compliance 

with its orders, the Court will impose a civil sanction of $10,000 

against Coral L. Silvey, which sum shall be payable to the 

registry of the court." Rec., vol. I, doc. 5 at 3. Although 

inartfully presented and encrusted with pages of extraneous 

material, Silvey argues on appeal, as she did below, that the 

bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to issue the contempt 

citation, as well as the underlying orders. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-1103 Document: 010110098415 Date Filed: 02/01/1991 Page: 3 
We have recently held that bankruptcy courts have authority 

under 11 u.s.c. § 105 (1988) to exercise civil contempt power. 

See Mountain America Credit Union v. Skinner (In re Skinner), No. 

89-4111, slip op. at 5 (10th Cir. Oct. 23, 1990)(to be reported at 

917 F.2d 444). However, we pointed out in Skinner that a 

bankruptcy court's powers under section 105(a) are limited by 28 

U.S.C. § 157, see id. at (slip op. at 7), which grants bankruptcy 

courts jurisdiction over "any or all cases under title 11 and any 

or all proceedings arising under title 11 or arising in or related 

to a case under title 11." 28 U.S.C. § 157(a)(l988). Thus, 

although a bankruptcy court may exercise civil contempt power, it 

may only do so to enforce an order that is, at a minimum, related 

to the administration of the bankruptcy. See American Hardwoods, 

Inc. v. Deutsche Credit Corp. (In re American Hardwoods. Inc.), 

885 F.2d 621, 623-24 (9th Cir. 1989). 

In this case, the bankruptcy court's orders enjoining Silvey 

and her agents from going onto the business property of Leon 

Weninger appear directed at protecting Leon's interest in that 

property. Leon is not, however, the debtor. Moreover, from the 

record before us it appears that the property at issue was not 

within the b a nkruptcy estate at the time of the restraining order, 

having been previously sold to Leon at the tax sale. It belongs 

either to Leon as a result of the IRS tax sale held after the 

automatic stay was lifted, or it belongs to Coral Silvey as a 

result of a 1978 conveyance to her by the debtor. See rec., vol. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-1103 Document: 010110098415 Date Filed: 02/01/1991 Page: 4 
I, doc. 8 (unsworn affidavit by debtors stating that property 

conveyed to Silvey in 1978). Although the bankruptcy order 

finding Silvey in contempt refers to an adversary proceeding in 

which title to and interests in the property are to be determined, 

the record does not reveal whether the estate is one of the 

claimants in that proceeding. See Kaonohi Ohana, Ltd. v. 

Sutherland, 873 F.2d 1302, 1306-07 (9th Cir. 1989). In addition, 

the bankruptcy court did not explain how an order protecting 

Leon's interest in this property is in any way related to the 

administration of the estate even assuming the estate has some 

claim to the property. Although both Silvey and Leon are 

creditors of the estate, the dispute generating the contempt does 

not involve their interests as creditors, nor does it appear to 

involve an asset presently in the estate. In view of the 

uncertain state of the record, we believe it appropriate to remand 

this case to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings to 

illuminate whether the orders underlying the contempt are related 

to the administration of the bankruptcy within the meaning of 

section 157. 

Finally, we note that we have not decided whether a 

bankruptcy court has the power to impose criminal contempt 

sanctions. See In re Skinner, 917 F.2d at (slip op. at 4 n.2). 

Although the bankruptcy court characterized its order as one 

holding Silvey in civil rather than criminal contempt, its order 

raises an ambiguity in that regard and his characterization is not 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-1103 Document: 010110098415 Date Filed: 02/01/1991 Page: 5 
dispositive. See Ahmed v. Reiss Steamship Co. (In re Jaques), 761 

F.2d 302, 306 (6th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1044 (1986). 

"Instead, the critical features are the substance 

of the proceeding and the character of the relief that 

the proceeding will afford. 'If it is for civil 

contempt the punishment is remedial, and for the benefit 

of the complainant. But if it is for criminal contempt 

the sentence is punitive, to vindicate the authority of 

the court.' .... The character of the relief imposed 

is thus ascertainable by applying a few straightforward 

rules. . If the relief provided is a fine, it is 

remedial when it is paid to the complainant, and 

punitive when it is paid to the court, though a fine 

that would be payable to the court is also remedial when 

the defendant can avoid paying the fine simply by 

performing the affirmative act required by the court's 

order." 

Hicks ex. rel. Feiock v. Feiock, 108 S. Ct. 1423, 1429-30 (1988) 

(citation omitted). 

Here the bankruptcy court ordered Silvey to pay Leon's 

attorney's fees and damages, sanctions which are remedial and 

therefore civil. See Better Homes v. Budget Service Co. (In re 

Better Homes), 52 Bankr. 426, 431 (E.D. Va. 1985), aff'd on other 

grounds, 804 F.2d 289 (4th Cir. 1986). However, in addition the 

court ordered Silvey to pay $10,000 to the court registry. 

Although the court stated that this sanction was to ensure 

compliance with its orders, the court did not expressly make 

payment conditional. It is "the conditional nature of the 

punishment [that] renders the relief civil in nature." Hicks, 108 

S. Ct. at 1430; cf. In re Better Homes, 52 Bankr. at 432. We are 

unable to determine whether the $10,000 payment was to be in the 

-6-

Appellate Case: 90-1103 Document: 010110098415 Date Filed: 02/01/1991 Page: 6 
nature of a bond to ensure future compliance with the court's 

orders or an unconditional punishment for past acts. Accordingly, 

on remand the bankruptcy court should clarify its order so as to 

indicate whether the sanction is civil or criminal in nature. 

REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings in light of 

this opinion. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-7-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-1103 Document: 010110098415 Date Filed: 02/01/1991 Page: 7