* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED November 30, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Summary Calendar No. 06-30404
IN THE MATTER OF: PETER BRUCE SCHUMACHER, Debtor. FIRST NATIONAL BANK, Appellant,
versus COMMUNITY TRUST BANK, Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the Western District of Louisiana

(3:05-CV-1610) Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * First National Bank (“FNB”) appeals a district court decision affirming the bankruptcy court. The district court rul

ing held th at the bankruptcy court did not err by nullifying it s previous order and by rul ing th at Com

munit y Trust Bank’s (“CTB”) claims were not time-barred. For the same reasons given by t he district court, we affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This appeal involves two banks, CTB and FNB, th at have mo rtgages fo r the same piece of2

property owned by a debtor in bankruptcy. CTB has the first mortgage, which covers eighteen acres of land. Later, FNB approved a mortgage on twenty-six acres, which included all the land in CTB’s fir st mo rtgage. When the debtor filed for bankruptcy in 2002, neither the banks nor the trustee of the bankruptcy estate knew th at the mo rtgages covered the same land. In January of 2003, unaware that another party had a superior claim, FNB had the trustee remove the property from the bankruptcy estate, settl

ing it s claims. In June of 2003, CTB got bankruptcy court approval to buy the land it had
mo rtgaged, which allo wed it to settle it s claims against the estate as well. Once all claims were settled, the debtor’s bankruptcy filing was closed in 2003. In 2004, the trustee discovered th at the land purportedl y sold to CTB had been previously abandoned from the bankruptcy estate. The bankruptcy court reopened the estate and eventually vacated it s order authorizing the CTB settlement, holding th at since the property had been removed from the bankrupt estate in January of 2003, it had no jurisdiction in June of 2003 to authorize it s sale. Before the bankruptcy court vacated it s order, FNB attem pted several procedural maneuvers, including filing a mo tion to wit hdraw the reference (rem oval from bankruptcy to district court), as well as filing mult iple claims in Loui siana state court seeking to take possession of the land and cancel CTB’s mortgage. The state court action has been stayed in light of this appeal. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW “We review the decision of a district court, sit ting as an appellate court, by applying the same standards of review to the bankruptcy court's findings of fact and conclusions of law as applied to the district court.” U.S. Dept. of Educ. v. Gerhardt ( In re Gerhardt), 348 F.3d 89, 91 (5th Cir. 2003) ( citing Total Minatome Corp. v. Jack/Wade Drilling, Inc. ( In re Jack/Wade Drilling, Inc. )), 258 F.3d3

385, 387 (5th Cir. 2001)). Findings of fact are reviewed fo r clear error; conclusions of law, de novo. Id
. III. DISCUSSION For the reasons given by the district court, we affirm. There was no error in the bankruptcy
cou rt’s August 16, 2005 deci sio n vacating the June 6, 2003 Order. Because the property was no lo nger a part of the bankruptcy estate in June of 2003, the bankruptcy court had no subject mat ter jurisdiction to approve the settlement agreement between CTB and debtor, an agree ment which invo lved the property . Alt hough they argue otherwise, FNB had an opportunity to respond and did respond to CTB’s Septem ber 2004 com

plaint by it s October 2004 “Combined Motion to Wit hdraw the Reference and, in any Event, to Dismiss.” IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. AFFIRMED.