Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02192/USCOURTS-ca10-90-02192-0/pdf.json

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

---

a 

FILED 6/14/91 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

PAUL HENRY HORSTMANN; 

BERTHA BEATRICE HORSTMANN, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

V. 

THE BANK OF RUIDOSO; MARK B. 

MCFEELEY; HARLEY SWINK, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

No. 90-2192 

(D.C. No. CV 88-1046 M) 

(Dist. New Mexico) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, 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. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

*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: 90-2192 Document: 010110120893 Date Filed: 06/14/1991 Page: 1 
Paul Henry Hortsmann and Bertha Beatrice Hortsmann (''the 

Hortsmanns") seek reversal of the district court order of July 23, 

1990, issued in connection with their Chapter 11 bankruptcy.1 On 

appeal, the Hortsmanns primarily contend that the district court 

should be reversed because: (1) the bankruptcy judge erroneously 

extended defendants' time to respond; (2) the bankruptcy judge 

issued proposed findings of fact before the Hortsmanns had an 

adequate opportunity to present their case; and (3) the district 

court erroneously restricted their future access to the courts; 

We review whether the bankruptcy court correctly granted an 

extension of time to defendants to avoid a default for an abuse of 

discretion. See Nikwei v. Ross School of Aviation, Inc., 822 F.2d 

939, 941 (10th Cir. 1987) (decision as to whether an entry of 

default judgment should be entered is within the sound discretion 

of the trial judge); see also In re Carlton, 72 B.R. 543 (Bankr. 

E.D.N.Y. 1987) (discretion similarly committed to bankruptcy 

court). We have carefully reviewed the record and the district 

court's assessment of this issue. On the basis of the authorities 

and analysis set out in the district court's order, we conclude 

that there was no abuse of discretion in allowing defendants to 

enlarge the time to respond in order to avoid a default judgment. 

See rec., vol. I, doc. 24, at 11-14. 

1 Two of the named defendants, Ralph Petty and Mel B. O'Reilly, 

are in bankruptcy. Therefore the appeal is abated as to them. 

See Dillon v. Fibreboard Corp., 919 F.2d 1488 (10th Cir. 1990 ). 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-2192 Document: 010110120893 Date Filed: 06/14/1991 Page: 2 
The Hortsmanns also contend that they did not have an 

adequate opportunity to present their case to the bankruptcy court 

with respect to defendants' motions to dismiss. The record on 

appeal, on its face, does not support their contention. It is the 

Hortsmanns' responsibility to designate the portions of the record 

which support their claims. Without record support, we are 

precluded from reversing the district court's order on this 

basis. 2 See Moore v. Subaru of America, 891 F.2d 1445, 1448 (10th 

Cir. 1989) (where appellants failed to designate many parts of the 

record which they made general reference to in their briefs and 

the court was without the record to substantiate the general 

allegations of error, deference to the lower court was 

appropriate). 

Finally, the Hortsmanns argue that the district court 

erroneously restricted their future access to the courts. A 

district court has the power to enjoin litigants who abuse the 

court system under 28 U.S.C. § 165l(a). Tripati v. Beaman, 878 

F.2d 351, 352 (10th Cir. 1989). In order for limitations on 

future litigation to be upheld on appeal, they must (1) be based 

on a finding of an abusive litigation history, (2) be accompanied 

by guidelines covering what a restricted party must do to obtain 

2 The defendants have summarized the facts surrounding their 

motion to dismiss to illustrate that the Hortsmanns were given 

repeated extensions and directions by the court to file a response 

to defendants' motions to dismiss, but declined to do so. See 

Appellees' Answer Brief at 11-13. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-2192 Document: 010110120893 Date Filed: 06/14/1991 Page: 3 
the court's permission to file an action, and (3) entitle the 

restricted party to notice and an opportunity to oppose a court's 

section 165l(a) order before it is instituted. See id. at 353-54. 

The district court's order in this case conforms to these 

requirements. The court specifically found that enjoining the 

Hortsmanns was necessary in view of "the groundless claims brought 

. along with the numerous, repetitive motions filed [which] 

have severely taxed the courts and opposing parties without 

furthering justice." Rec., vol. I, doc. 24 at 27. The court also 

outlined what guidelines the Hortsmanns must follow in order to 

file an action, explicitly including a provision regarding notice 

and opportunity to respond. See id. at 27-29. 

As to whether the district court appropriately limited the 

Hortsmanns' future access to the courts, 11 [w]e emphasize that the 

district court's discretion in tailoring appropriate conditions 

under which [a plaintiff] may commence and prosecute lawsuits is 

extremely broad and that we will not disturb that court's choice 

of requirements absent abuse of that discretion." Triparti, 878 

F.2d at 354. Given that the record in this case clearly 

demonstrates the duplicative and vexatious nature of the 

Hortsmanns' actions, we conclude that the district court did not 

abuse its discretion in fashioning the requirements for the 

Hortsmanns' future filings. 

In their reply brief, the Hortsmanns raise additional issues 

generally challenging the correctness and propriety of the 

district court's order. Because these issues were not raised in 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-2192 Document: 010110120893 Date Filed: 06/14/1991 Page: 4 
the Hortsmanns' Opening Brief, defendants did not have the 

opportunity to respond. In any event, we are not persuaded that 

any of these issues require reversal. We affirm the district 

court's order substantially on the basis of the authorities and 

analysis therein.3 

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

3 The Hortsmanns attempt to raise certain issues for the first 

time in their reply brief and they were therefore not addressed by 

the district court. Because these issues were not raised below, 

further judicial review of them is barred. See Singleton v. 

Wulff, 428 U.S. 100, 120 (1976). 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-2192 Document: 010110120893 Date Filed: 06/14/1991 Page: 5