Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01048/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01048-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Electronic Metal Products, Inc.
Appellee
Honeywell Bull, Inc.
Appellant
Honeywell, Inc.
Appellant

Document Text:

' \ 

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U-nited States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Cirmit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

IN RE: ELECTRONIC METAL PRODUCTS, ) 

INC., d/b/a ADVANCED MACHINING CO., ) 

) 

Debtor, ) 

) 

) 

) 

ELECTRONIC METAL PRODUCTS, INC., d/b/a ) 

ADVANCED MACHINING CO., ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

HONEYWELL, INC., a Delaware ) 

corporation; HONEYWELL BULL, INC., ) 

a Delaware corporation, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellants. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

MAY '7 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 89-1048 

(D.C. No. 88-B-1060) 

( D. Colo. ) 

Before ANDERSON, BARRETT, 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. 

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: 89-1048 Document: 01019970062 Date Filed: 05/07/1990 Page: 1 
--

This appeal arises out of an adversarial proceeding in a 

Chapter 11 bankruptcy action. Electronic Metal Products, Inc. 

(EMP), the debtor in possession, commenced the adversarial 

proceeding against Honeywell, Inc. (Honeywell) and Honeywell Bull, 

Inc. (Bull), to recover payment on invoices for $50,000 worth of 

goods EMP supplied to Bull both before and after EMP filed its 

petition in bankruptcy. 

Honeywell and Bull filed a motion for summary judgment in 

which they asserted that EMP already had been paid on the invoices 

at issue because Honeywell had assigned Bull a $50,000 credit from 

EMP and Bull had applied that credit to the invoices. Honeywell 

and Bull contended that this application of credit constituted a 

va l id recoupment in accordance with In re B & L Oil Co., 782 F.2d 

155 (10th Cir. 1986). In two cross-motions for summary judgment, 

EMP argued that the assignment of credit from Honeywell to Bull 

was invalid and that Bull's application of the credit was not a 

recoupment, but a setoff. EMP contended that the setoff of 

pre-petition debt was invalid under 11 U.S.C. § 553, and the 

setoff of post-petition debt was invalid because it violated the 

automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 362. 

After 

bankruptcy 

a hearing on the summary judgment motions, the 

court entered judgment in favor of Honeywell and Bull, 

concluding that the assignment was valid and that the application 

of credit constituted a recoupment rather than a setoff. EMP then 

appealed the bankruptcy court's order to the district court. 

The district court approved the bankruptcy court's 

determination that the assignment was valid and, therefore, 

2 

Appellate Case: 89-1048 Document: 01019970062 Date Filed: 05/07/1990 Page: 2 
affirmed the judgment in favor of Honeywell. The district court 

rejected the determination that the application of credit was a 

valid recoupment, however. It reversed the judgment in favor of 

Bull and remanded the action to the bankruptcy court for further 

proceedings. 

On appeal to this court, Honeywell and Bull argue that the 

district court erred in concluding that Bull's application of the 

credit did not constitute a recoupment. We do not reach the 

merits of this issue, however, because we conclude that we lack 

jurisdiction over this appeal. 

Although neither party has raised the issue of this court's 

jurisdiction in its brief on appeal, we have the duty to examine 

our jurisdiction sua sponte. See In re Durability, Inc., 893 F.2d 

264, 265 (10th Cir. 1990); Tuck v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 859 

F.2d 842, 844 (10th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 109 S. Ct. 1534 

(1989). Our jurisdiction over bankruptcy matters is limited to 

"final decisions, judgments, orders, and decrees" of the district 

court. 28 u.s.c. § 158(d). 

'final order ' for purposes of 

terms[,] ... i.e., that 

"The Tenth Circuit has interpreted 

§ 158(d) in traditional finality 

'[t]o be final and appealable, the 

district court's order must end the litigation and leave nothing 

to be done except execute the judgment.'" In re Magic Circle 

Energy Corp., 889 F.2d 950, 953 (10th Cir. 1989)(quoting In re 

Glover, Inc., 697 F.2d 907, 909 (10th Cir. 1983)). 

The district court's order here did not end the litigation 

and leave nothing to be done except execute the judgment. On 

remand, the bankruptcy court must determine whether Bull's 

3 

Appellate Case: 89-1048 Document: 01019970062 Date Filed: 05/07/1990 Page: 3 
. . 

application of the credit to its pre-petition debt constituted a 

valid setoff or whether all or a portion of the debt is 

recoverable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 553. The court also must 

determine whether Bull's application of the credit to its 

post-petition debt violated the automatic stay imposed by 

11 u.s.c. § 362. The bankruptcy court did not address these 

issues in its original disposition, and must do so on remand. 

The district court's order "requires further steps to be 

taken to enable the court below to adjudicate the cause on the 

merits. Therefore, it is not final." In re Glover, 697 F.2d at 

910 (footnote omitted). See also In re Fox, 762 F.2d 54, 55 (7th 

Cir. 1985)(district court order remanding case to bankruptcy court 

normally not final unless "all that remains to [be done] on remand 

is a purely mechanical, computational, or in short 'ministerial' 

task, whose performance is unlikely either to generate a new 

appeal or to affect the issue that the disappointed party wants to 

raise on appeal from the order of remand."). 

Accordingly, 

jurisdiction. 

this appeal is DISMISSED 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

4 

for lack of 

Appellate Case: 89-1048 Document: 01019970062 Date Filed: 05/07/1990 Page: 4