Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01179/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01179-0/pdf.json

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

---

• 

FI LED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

JUN 7 1991 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk In re: RAINSFORD J. WINSLOW and 

WINIFRED W. WINSLOW, 

Debtors, 

RAINSFORD J. WINSLOW and WINIFRED w. 

WINSLOW, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

WILLIAMS GROUP and MORGAN COUNTY, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 90-1179 

(D.C. No. 89-M-1811) 

(D. Colo.) 

Before McKAY, SETH, and SEYMOUR, 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. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

* 

The case is therefore ordered 

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: 90-1179 Document: 010110118846 Date Filed: 06/07/1991 Page: 1 
Rainsford and Winifred Winslow (debtors) appeal the district 

court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's allowance of claims 

by creditors predicated on a state court judgment entered against 

debtors in Morgan County District Court in Fort Morgan, Colorado. 

Based on our review of debtors' appellate briefs, it is 

apparent that debtors are improperly attempting to collaterally 

attack the state court judgment. It is well established that when 

a claim of a creditor is predicated upon a state court judgment, 

the claim may be assailed in bankruptcy court only · upon the 

following grounds: (1) lack of jurisdiction over the parties or 

subject matter of the suit; or (2) the judgment is the product of 

fraud. Heiser v. Woodruff, 327 U.S. 726, 736 (1946). 

Debtors have put forth no claim that either a jurisdictional 

defect or fraud of a party elicited the state court decision. 

Thus, debtors cannot collaterally attack the judgment in 

bankruptcy court. 

Debtors have also challenged the procedural conduct of the 

proceedings in the district court and the bankruptcy court. We 

need not address debtors' argument that the bankruptcy judge was 

biased against them since this issue was not raised in a timely 

fashion below. Burnette v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 849 F.2d 1277, 

1282 (10th Cir. 1988). Furthermore, we agree with the reasons 

given by the district court for refusing to consider two volumes 

submitted by debtors as part of the record on appeal. 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-1179 Document: 010110118846 Date Filed: 06/07/1991 Page: 2 
.. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the United States District Court 

for the District of Colorado is AFFIRMED. All pending motions are 

denied as moot. 

Entered for the Court 

Oliver Seth 

Circuit Judge 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-1179 Document: 010110118846 Date Filed: 06/07/1991 Page: 3