Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03055/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03055-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ada C. Bates
Appellant
Ava L. Bates
Appellant
Theodore B. Bates
Appellant
The Federal Land Bank of Wichita
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

In re: AVA L. BATES; ADA 

c. BATES; and 

THEODORE B. BATES, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Debtors. ) 

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

AVAL. BATES; ADA C. BATES; and) 

THEODORE B. BATES, ) 

Appellants, 

v. 

THE FEDERAL LAND BANK OF 

WICHITA, 

Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

f AY 16 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-3055 

(D.C. No. 90-CV-1212) 

(D. Kansas) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, 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. 

*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: 91-3055 Document: 010110106517 Date Filed: 05/16/1991 Page: 1 
34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This purports to be an appeal from a judgment of the district 

court affirming a bankruptcy court denying a motion to reopen a 

bankruptcy case. The district court noted that while the motion 

was filed in the bankruptcy case of Ava Louise Bates, Ada C. Bates 

and Theodore B. Bates attempted to join the appeal. Nonetheless, 

the district court voided the futile joinder effort and affirmed 

the bankruptcy court's refusal to reopen the case of Ava Louise 

Bates. The district court held that debtor failed to establish 

the bankruptcy court had abused its discretion in denying the 

motion to reopen. Because it is evident that the only reason the 

debtor advanced to reopen the case is to re-litigate matters 

previously litigated to judgment, we agree with the district 

court's analysis. 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-3055 Document: 010110106517 Date Filed: 05/16/1991 Page: 2