Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05116/USCOURTS-ca10-89-05116-0/pdf.json

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

---

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH·CIRCUIT 

In re: CAESAR C. LATIMER, ) 

) 

Debtor. ) 

) 

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

) 

KENNETH L. STAINER, ) 

. ) 

Appel lee, j 

. FILED 

United Statfl Coon"£ Ap~ 

Tenth Circuit · 

NOV 7 19QO 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

) 

v. ) No. 89-5116 

) 

EMILY L. LATIMER; the unknown ) 

heirs, executors, administrators, ) 

divisees, and assigns of MARIA L. ) 

LATIMER, Deceased; JULIA LATIMER ) 

WARREN, administratrix of the estate ) 

of MARIA L. LATIMER, Deceased; JULIA ) 

LATIMER WARREN, individually; RETA ) 

LATIMER WRIGHT; JAMES HAROLD ) 

LATIMER; CHARLES SYLVESTER LATIMER, ) 

) 

Appellants. ) 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

(D.C. No. 88-C-594-B) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

Caesar c. Latimer, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Appellants. 

David A. Carpenter, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Appellee. 

Appellate Case: 89-5116 Document: 01019946640 Date Filed: 11/07/1990 Page: 1 
Before McKAY, McWILLIAMS, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

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. 

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

submitted without oral argument. 

Defendants appeal from an order of the district court 

affirming the bankruptcy court's order avoiding all conveyances of 

real property by debtor Caesar C. Latimer and his wife Emily L. 

Latimer. We affirm. 

The trustee, Kenneth L. Stainer, commenced an adversary 

action in the bankruptcy court to recover the real property the 

debtor had conveyed five months before filing his Chapter 7 

bankruptcy petition to Mrs. Latimer, and which she subsequently 

conveyed in part to the other defendants. None of the defendants 

had submitted a claim against the bankruptcy estate. At a 

pretrial conference, the bankruptcy court denied defendants' oral 

demand for a jury trial. After trial, the bankruptcy court 

avoided all of the conveyances by debtor and Mrs. Latimer. 

Defendants appealed to this court, after the district court 

affirmed the bankruptcy court. 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-5116 Document: 01019946640 Date Filed: 11/07/1990 Page: 2 
On appeal, defendants first argue 

standing to participate in this adversary 

with the district court's determination 

that the debtor had. 

proceeding. We 

that debtor 

agree 

had no 

standing, due to his failure to move to intervene in this 

adversary action. 

Defendants argue the' bankruptcy court erred in ruling they 

were not entitled to a jury trial, because, they contend, they did 

not waive their right to a jury trial. After determining 

bankruptcy courts are without jurisdiction to conduct jury trials, 

the district court concluded defendants' failure to request a 

transfer to the district court after the bankruptcy court denied 

their request for a jury trial effectively waived their right to a 

jury trial. 

The trustee first maintains the bankruptcy court properly 

denied the request for a jury trial because defendants made an 

oral rather than a written request for jury trial. We agree. A 

request must be in writing. Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b); Bankr. R. 9015 

(abrogated Mar. 30, 1987). Thus, defendants did not make a proper 

request for a jury trial. 

Even if defendants had made a proper request, we accept the 

trustee's argument that defendants waived their right to a .jury 

trial. In Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 109 S. Ct. 2782 

(1989), the Court held that when a proper demand for a jury trial 

has been made, a person who had not submitted a claim against a 

bankruptcy estate has a seventh amendment right to a jury trial 

when sued by a trustee to recover alleged fraudulent conveyances 

of property. The Court, however, expressly declined to decide 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-5116 Document: 01019946640 Date Filed: 11/07/1990 Page: 3 
whether bankruptcy courts have authority to conduct jury trials in 

fraudulent conveyance actions. Id. at 2802. In considering the 

issue, this court has recently held that bankruptcy courts may not 

hold jury trials. In re Kaiser Steel Corp., 911 F.2d 380, 389-92 

(10th Cir. 1990). 

In Kaiser Steel, the parties filed a request for a jury trial 

and a request to withdraw reference to the bankruptcy court in the 

adversary action to recover transferred assets. This court 

concluded that "[w]here the seventh amendment requires a jury 

trial to be held in bankruptcy, that trial must take place in the 

district court, sitting in 

bankruptcy." Id. at 392. 

its original jurisdiction in 

Accordingly, this court directed the 

district court to withdraw the reference and conduct a jury trial 

on the issues for which timely demand had been made, Id. 

In the case at bar, defendants requested only a jury trial; 

they did not request transfer to the district court. Failure to 

make such a request was a waiver of the right to a jury trial. We 

hold that to avoid waiver, parties seeking a jury trial must 

combine their request for a jury trial with a request for transfer 

to the district court. Accordingly, the district court was not 

clearly erroneous in deciding the request for a jury trial without 

a request for transfer waived the right to a jury trial. See 

Bartmann v. Maverick Tube Corp., 853 F.2d 1540, 1543 (10th Cir. 

1988). 

Defendants also argue the district court erred in determining 

the conveyances were fraudulent and should be avoided. After 

4 

Appellate Case: 89-5116 Document: 01019946640 Date Filed: 11/07/1990 Page: 4 
reviewing the record on appeal, we conclude the bankruptcy court· 

did not err in determining the conveyances were fraudulent. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. 

5 

Appellate Case: 89-5116 Document: 01019946640 Date Filed: 11/07/1990 Page: 5