FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT January 31, 2008 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 11743

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o s . 0 5 - 8 0 1 0 7 - CV - W PD & 0 3 - 3 2 1 5 8 - BK C- PG I N R E : J A M E S F . W A L K E R , D e b to r .

_________________________________________________ L I N D A J . W A L D E N , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s J A M E S F . W A L K E R , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( Jan u ar y 31, 2008)Honora ble Scott Coogler , United States District Judg e for the Northern District of * Alabama , sitti ngby

designation. 2 B ef ore D U B IN A and K R A V IT C H , C i rc ui tJudg es , and C O O G L E R , D i stri ct * Judg e. K R A V I T C H , C ir c u it J u d g e : L i nda J . W a l de n ( “ W a l de n” ) appe a l s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s a f f i r m a nc e of

the b a n k ru p t c y c o u r t ’ s r e mo v a l o r d e r s , r e mo v i n g h e ra s tru s t e e i n d e b t o rJ a me s F. W a lk e r ’s ( “W a lk e r ” ) C h ap te r7 b a n k ru p tc y p r o c e e d in g . T hi s app ea l pres ent s three i ss ues of f

i rs ti m pres si on i n t hi s c i rc ui t : (1) w hether thi s C ou rthas j uri sdi ct i on ov er a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s a f

f i r m a nc e of

a ba nkrupt c y c our t ’ s r e m ova l of a trus t e e , ( 2) w h e th e ra C h ap te r7 d e b to r , w ith n o p e c u n ia r y in te r e s t in th e e s ta te , is a “p a r ty in i nt e r e s t ” tha tc a n s e e k r e m ova l of the trus t e e , a nd ( 3) w he the ra ba nkrupt c y j udge ca n rem ov e atrust ee s u a s p o n te f o rl y i n g u n d e ro a th . F o rth e r e a s o n s s t a t e d b e l o w, w e a f f i r m. Ba c k g r o und W a lk e rf ile d f o rv o lu n ta r y b a n k ru p tc y in A p r il o f 2 0 0 3 c la im in g to ta l a s s e ts of $1 01 . 00 and l i abi l i t i es of $1 , 09 5, 25 7. 98 . In June of thatye ar , the cr edi t ors e le c te d W a ld e n to b e th e tru s te e . W a ld e n s u b m itte d a V e r if ie d S ta te m e n t to A cc om pany U ni t ed S t at es T rust ee ’ s R eportof D i sput ed E l ec t i on U nd er B ankrup t cy R ul e 200 7. 1(b)(3)(B) (“ V er i fi ed S t at em ent ”) dat ed June 12 , 20 03 . InShuhi owns/m anag es several business entities in addition to FCM, including F lorida 1 Calipers (“ FC”) , which later chang ed its name to “Centurion.”

3 the V e r i f i e d S t a t e m e nt , W a l de n s t a t e d tha ts he ha d no c onne c t i ons w i th a ny of the cr edi t ors e xceptthatshe w as the re ce i ver i n ano ther r el at ed m att er . T he V er i fi ed S t a t e m e ntr e a d: I , L i nda W a l de n, the unde r s i gne d, he r e by s t a t e the f ol l ow i ng u n d er pe na l t y o f

pe rj ur y, 18 U . S . C . S e c t i on 1001, i n c onne c t i on w i th the p e n d in g tru s te e e le c tio n in th is c a s e : I have the fol l ow i ng conn ec t i on s w i th t he debt or, cr edi t ors, any other p a r ty in in te r e s t, th e irr e s p e c tiv e a tto r n e y s a n d a c c o u n ta n ts , th e p a r ty i n i nt er es t , thei r r es pect i ve att orneys and account ant s, the U ni t ed S t a t e s T rus t e e f

orR e gi on 21, a nd/ ora ny pe r s on e m pl oy e d i n the O f f i c e of the U ni t e d S t a t e s T rus t e e : N O N E e xc e pta s di s c l os e d he r e i n: 1. I w a s appoi nt e d a nd c ur r e nt l y s e r ve a s S t a t e C our tR e c e i ve rf orthe Cr e d i t o r s i n th e ma tt e rs ty l e d El e a n o rC. Co l e , Pl a i n t i f f , v . J a me s F. W a lk e r , D e f

e n d a n t C a s e N o . 8 9 - 2 1 4 6 2 - 0 9 b e f o r e th e H o n o r a b le C i r c ui tC our tJ udge A ndr e w s c ur r e nt l y pe ndi ng a nd s t a y e d i n the C i rc ui tC ou rtof the S event ee nt h Jud i ci al C i rc ui ti n and for B row ar d C o u n ty. (E m ph as i s a dd ed). O n Jul y 9, 20 03 , the bank rupt cy courthel d a R at i fi ca t i on H ea ri ng . A tthat he a r i ng, W a l ke ra s s e r t e d tha tW a l de n ha d a r e l a t i ons hi p w i th C a r l S huhi , the pr e s i de ntof

F l or i da C a l i pe rM a nuf

a c tur e r s ( “ F C M ” )

— the c r e di t orw i th the 1 seco n d l arg estcl ai m i n th e b an k ru p t cy p ro ceed i n g — creat i n g a co n fl i cto f i n t erest and t hatW al den w as , there fore , di squal i fi ed fr om se rvi ng as the trust ee . W al den4

d en i ed h av i n g an y rel at i o n sh i p w i th S h u h i ; sh e t est i fi ed as fo l l o w s: Q : H a ve y ou r e nde r e d s e r vi c e s on M r . S hue y ’ s ( s i c ) be ha l f f ora ny of h i s en t i t i es? A : N o. I do n otdo pers on al w ork for M r. S hu ey (s i c) . Q : H ave y ou re ce i ved any m on ey i n any form fr om M r. S hu ey(s i c) at any poi nti n t i m e? A : M r . S h u e y ( s ic ) d o e s n o t p a y m e . Q : H as M r. S hu ey (s i c) gi ven you any m on ey atany poi nti n t i m e? A : M r. S h u ey (si c) h as n o tg i v en m e m o n ey. Q : W hati s y ou r busi ness re l at i on shi p w i th M r. S hu ey (s i c) , no ne? A : I do n othave a di re ctbu si ness re l at i on shi p w i th M r. S hu ey (s i c) , othe rtha n the f

a c ttha the i s a c r e di t ori n thi s pa r t i c ul a rc a s e , a nd I ha ve m e tw i th M r . S hue y ( s i c ) t o ge ti nf or m a t i on i n the r e c e i ve r s hi p. Q : In the re ce i vers hi p, you’ ve m etw i th M r. S heuy (s i c) t o g et in fo rm atio n in th e r ec eiv er sh ip . U n d erth e r ec eiv er sh ip o rd er , are n ’t you t he fi du ci ary of E l ea no r C . C ol e? A : I a m th e f

id u c ia r y o f

— I w a s ap p o in te d th e r e c e iv e rf o rM s . C o le an d th e cred i t o rs. Q : S o w h e n y o u s a y y o u d o n ’t h a v e a n y d ir e c t b u s in e s s r e la tio n s h ip w i th M r. S h u ey (si c), d o yo u h av e so m e i n d i rectb u si n ess r e l a t i ons hi p? A : A s I sai d , I w as th e ap p o i n t ee fo r th e cred i t o rs. Q : D o yo u ren d er an y serv i ces fo r an y o f M r. S h u ey’ s (si c) b u si n ess e n t i t i e s ? A : N o, I be l i e ve I a ns w e r e d tha tque s t i on. W al den w as then rat i fi ed as the trust ee . O n A ug ust23 , 20 04 , W al ker f i l ed a n E m e r ge nc y M ot i on t o R e m ove the T rus t e e . H e a l l e ge d tha tW a l de n ha d a c onf l i c tof i nt e r e s ta nd ha d l i e d a bouti ton the V e r i f i e d S t a t e m e nta nd a tthe J ul y 9, 20 04 R at i fi ca t i on H ea ri ng . S peci fi ca l l y, W al ker a l l eged thatW al den h ad perf orm ed ac coun t i ng se rvi ce s f or S hu hi and/ or hi s c orpo ra t e e nt i t i es , thatshe had pr e pa r e d a n e xpe r tr e por tf orS huhi i n a s t a t e c our ta c t i on i n 2000, a nd tha ts he5

serv ed as R eg i st ered A g en tfo r tw o o f S h u h i ’ s b u si n ess en t i t i es. A ta he a r i ng on the m ot i on t o r e m ove , the f ol l ow i ng e vi de nc e w a s pr e s e nt e d: S e v e r a l y e a r s p r io rto th e b a n k ru p tc y , S h u h i s u e d th e S im o n la w f ir m in s ta te c o u r t. U tr e c h t, S h u h i’s la w y e rin th a t s ta te c o u r t a c tio n , te s tif ie d th a t in r e pr e s e nt i ng S huhi dur i ng tha tc a s e , S huhi t ol d U tr e c httha tW a l de n w oul d be the e x p e r t in th e litig a tio n . U tr e c h t te s tif ie d th a t h e s p o k e w ith W a ld e n a n d m e t w ith h e rs e v e r a l tim e s f

o rth is p u rp o s e . M o r e o v e r , E la in e G a ts o s , a n a tto r n e y f o rS h u h i, t e s t i f i e d tha ts he be c a m e one of S huhi ’ s a t t or ne y s f

ol l ow i ng W a l de n’ s r e f

e r r a l a nd in tr o d u c tio n in 1 9 9 9 . G a ts o s te s tif ie d th a t s h e m e t w ith b o th W a ld e n a n d S h u h i in F e brua r y of

1999 f orthe i ni t i a l c l i e ntm e e t i ng a tS huhi ’ s of f i c e . F ur the r , G a t s os t es t i fi ed thatse vera l t i m es af t erthe i ni t i al G at sos- W al den-S hu hi m ee t i ng , W al den i ndi c a t e d tha ts he w a s f i l l i ng outa ns w e r s t o e xpe r ti nt e r r oga t or i e s r e l a t e d t o the s ta te c o u r t a c tio n h a n d le d b y U tr e c h t. P ar t i cul ar l y dam agi ng t o W al den w er e S hu hi ’ s deposi t i on s t aken i n 1 99 9. In tw o de pos i t i ons f

r om tha ty e a r , S huhi t e s t i f i e d tha tW a l de n w a s the e xpe r ti n the ca se and t hatW al den w as bo th F C M ’ s a cc ou nt antand S hu hi ’ s per sonal acco u n t an t . O n Ju n e 2 8 , 1 9 9 9 , S h u h i h ad t est i fi ed as fo l l o w s: Q [ D e f e n s e c o u n s e l]: D o e s F lo r id a C a lip e rM a n u f a c tu r e r s f

ile co rp o rat e t ax retu rn s? A : Y es. Q : W h o f

i l e s th e t a x r e tu r n s , o rw h o p r e p a r e s th e m?6

A: C P A. Q: Wh a t ’ s th e n a m e o f

th e p r e s e n tC P A? A : L i nda W a l de n. Q: W- A- L - D- E - N? A : I be l i e ve s o.

... Q : D o you fi l e per sonal t ax re turns every y ea r? A : Y e s . M y C P A doe s the w or k. Q: Wh o i s y o u rp e r s o n a l C P A? A : L i nda W a l de n.

... Q : D o you have a t ot al for the am ou ntof dam ages thatyou cl ai m ed have res ul t ed fr om these m att er s i nv ol vi ng the sa m e s ubj ec tm att er b ei n g p u rsu ed sep arat el y? A : I ’d h a v e to r e f

e rth a t to m y a c c o u n ta n t. Q : A nd w ho i s y ou r a cc ou nt antfor thi s purpo se ? A : L i nda W a l de n. Q : H a s M s . W a l de n be e n r e t a i ne d a tthi s poi ntt o pr ovi de a ny t e s t i m ony orc a l c ul a t e a ny da m a ge s w i th r e ga r d t o thi s l i t i ga t i on? A : Y es. A l so, atan A ug ust25 , 19 99 depo si t i on S hu hi had b ee n asked abou tdam ages i n t he ca se . S hu hi st at ed thathe coul d n otfr om hi s m em ory di sc uss the spec i fi cs of hi s ba s i s f

orda m a ge s butr e f

e r r e d c ouns e l t o hi s a c c ount a nt , L i nda W a l de n. A dd i t i on al l y, W al ker i nt rodu ce d a pl etho raof ot her e vi dence i nd i ca t i ng that W a l de n a nd S huhi ha d a pr e - e xi s t i ng r e l a t i ons hi p pr i ort o W a l de n’ s s ubm i s s i on of th e V e r if ie d S ta te m e n t a n d h e ro r a l te s tim o n y a t th e R e m o v a l H e a r in g . T h is e vi de nc e i nc l ude d ( 1) c our tdoc um e nt s f r om the s t a t e c our ta c t i on f i l e d w i th the c our ti n 2000 s t a t i ng tha tS huhi ’ s e nt i t i e s w e r e i nvoki ng the a c c ount a nt - c l i e nt p r iv ile g e w ith r e s p e c t to d o c u m e n ts r e q u e s te d o f W a ld e n ; ( 2 ) d o c u m e n ts f ile d w ith7

the F l ori da S ec re t ary of S t at e i n 2 00 1 i nd i ca t i ng thatW al den w as F C ’ s R egi st er ed A ge nt ; a nd ( 3) doc um e nt s i de nt i f y i ng W a l de n a s the R e gi s t e r e d A ge ntof C e ntur i on. W a l de n w a s s t i l l C e ntur i on’ s R e gi s t e r e d A ge nton J ul y 9, 2004— the d ay o f th e R at i fi cat i o n H eari n g i n w h i ch sh e t est i fi ed th atsh e h ad n o b u si n ess r e la tio n s h ip w ith S h u h i o ra n y o f h is e n titie s . W a l de n m a i nt a i ne d tha ts he ha d no r e l a t i ons hi p w i th S huhi pr i ort o 2002 w he n s he be c a m e the r e c e i ve ri n the W a l ke rba nkrupt c y . S he t e s t i f i e d: Q [ A ppe l l e e ’ s c ouns e l ] : H a ve y ou e ve rbe e n e m pl oy e d— ha ve y ou ev er b een an em p l o yee o f C arl S h u h i o r an y o f h i s en t i t i es? A : N o , I h a v e n e v e rb e e n a n e m p lo y e e o f C a r l S h u h i o ra n y o f

h is en t i t i es. Q : H av e yo u ev er w o rk ed fo r C arl S h u h i o r an y o f h i s en t i t i es? A : I h av e n ev er w o rk ed fo r C arl S h u h i o r an y o f h i s en t i t i es. Q : Y ou previ ou sl y t es t i fi ed thatyou h ave never bee n ret ai ned b y C ar l S h u h i o ra n y o f

h is e n titie s : is th a t c o r r e c t? A : I do n otkn ow i f thatw as m y t es t i m on y; ho w ever , I have notbeen ret ai n ed b y C arl S h u h i o r an y o f h i s en t i t i es. Q : A n d y o u h a v e n e v e rr e n d e r e d a n y s e r v ic e s , a s I s u p p o s e is b o th your t es t i m on y a nd C ar l S hu hi ’ s t es t i m on y a s of O ct ob er8t h for C ar l S h u h i o ra n y o f

h is e n titie s , c o r r e c t? A : A s of O ct ob er8t h, I have never r endered any s ervi ce s of C ar l S h u h i. Q : O r an y o f h i s en t i t i es? A : O r an y o f h i s en t i t i es. O n N ov em ber 17, 20 04 , af t erfi ve days of hear i ng s on t he m ot i on t o rem ov e, the bank rupt cy j ud ge foun d t hatW al den fai l ed t o d i sc l ose c on nect i on s s he had w i th S hu hi and t hatshe l i ed abou tthese conn ec t i on s bot h o n t he V er i fi ed8

S t a t e m e nta nd dur i ng or a l t e s t i m ony be f or e the c our t . T he j udge gr a nt e d the m ot i on t o rem ov e ora l l y a nd re qu es t ed W al ker’ s a t t orney t o p re pare the w ri t t en or de r . C onc e r ne d a bouta pot e nt i a l l y l ong de l a y be tw e e n the N ove m be r17 he a r i ng a nd the e ntr y of

the f or m a l r e m ova l or de rc ont a i ni ng f i ndi ngs of

f a c ta nd concl usi on s of l aw , the U ni t ed S t at es T rust ee — M s. H ef fner

— as ked for a bri ef w r i t t e n or de rr e m ovi ng W a l de n s o tha ta ne w trus t e e c oul d be appoi nt e d. T he j ud ge i ss ued t he on e- page order (“ R em ov al O rderI” ). W al den t hen fi l ed her not i ce of appe a l , a nd on D e c e m be r1, 2004 the j udge e nt e r e d the f i ndi ngs of

f a c ta nd c o n c lu s io n s o f

la w ( “R e m o v a l O r d e rI I ” ) a n d F in a l J u d g m e n t. In bo th t he order grant i ng the m ot i on oral l y a nd the w ri t t en R em ov al O rder I I , the ba nkrupt c y j udge f ound tha tW a l de n ha d l i e d on the V e r i f i e d S t a t e m e nt w he n s he i ndi c a t e d tha ts he ha d no c onne c t i ons w i th a ny c r e di t or s a nd tha ts he f ur the rl i e d t o the c our ta boutboth ( 1) w he the rs he a c t e d a s a n e xpe r tw i tne s s a nd a c c o u n ta n t f

o rS h u h i a n d /o rh is e n titie s in a s ta te c o u r t a c tio n s e v e r a l y e a r s p r io rto the ba nkrupt c y pr oc e e di ng w he r e i n S huhi ’ s e nt i t i e s s ue d the S i m on l a w f i r m , a nd ( 2) w he the rs he w a s a R e gi s t e r e d A ge ntf ore nt i t i e s ow ne d a nd c ontr ol l e d by S huhi in 2 0 0 1 a n d a f

te r . W al den t hen app ea l ed t o t he di stri ctcourt , w hi ch af fi rm ed the bank rupt cy co u rt ’ s o rd ers.Altho ugh when Walker f ile d f or ba nk ru ptcy his lis te d li a

bil iti e s gre atly

e xce e de d a ssets, 2 valuable real e state in the B ahama s has now been added to the list of asse ts and it appea rs as though theassets now e x cee d liabiliti es. The que stion on appeal, however, is whe ther Walker h ads t an di n g at the timehe moved f or Walden’s removal. See F ocus on the F amily v. Pinellas Sun c oa st Tra

ns it Auth ., 34 4 F .3 d 1 26 3, 12 75 (1 1th Cir . 2 00 3) (s tandingis m e a sure d f ro m ti me complaint was filed) . There fore , our analysis mustignore the subsequent chang es to the valueof the estate . 9 O n app ea l t o t hi s C ou rt , W al den con t ends that(1) the bank rupt cy court l ac ked j uri sdi ct i on t o ent erR em ov al O rderII and F i nal Judg m entbeca use W al den al re ady had fi l ed an appeal of R em ov al O rderI, thu s s tri pp i ng the bank rupt cy court of j ur i s di c t i on; ( 2) W a l ke r— a s a C hapt e r7 de bt orw i th no pe c uni a r y i nt e r e s ti n the e s t a t e — l a c ke d s t a ndi ng a s a “ pa r ty i n i nt e r e s t ” t o s e e k r e m ova l of the trus t e e ; ( 3)

2 there w as i nsuffi ci entl egal cause t o rem ov e the trust ee ; and (4) the bank rupt cy c o u r t e r r e d b y v io la tin g W a ld e n ’s D u e P r o c e s s r ig h ts . W e w i l l addres s these i ss ues i n turn. B utfi rs t , w e m ustexam i ne w hether thi s C our tha s j ur i s di c t i on ove ra n appe a l of the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s a f

f i r m a nc e of

the b an k ru p t cy co u rt ’ s rem o v al o rd ers. D i s c u s s i on 1. Ju ri sd i ct i on ov er A p p eal of D i st ri ct C ou rt ’s A ff i rm an ce of R em ov al O rd er s A l tho ug h n ei ther party s ub m i t t ed bri ef s on t he i ss ue, i ti s adu ty of thi s C ou rt t o d et erm i n e w h eth er i th as j u ri sd i ct i o n o v er a p art i cu l ar m at t er, ev en i f d o i n g so ra i se s the i ss ue s u a s

p o n te . F i nn v. P rude nt i a l - B a c he S e c . , I nc . , 821 F . 2d 581, 585 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 8 7 ). W e rev i ew j u ri sd i ct i o n al i ssu es de no vo . AT&T M o b i l i ty , LL CThereareexceptions to the finality requirement, but none of them a re releva nt here . 3 See L ockwood, 60 F .3d at 726. 10 v. N at ’ l A ss ’ n for S t ock C arA ut o R ac i ng , Inc. , 49 4 F . 3d 13 56 , 13 60 (11t h C i r. 20 07 ). A courtof appeal s has j uri sdi ct i on ov eron l y f i nal j ud gm ent s a nd orders ar i si ng fr om a bankrup t cyproceedi ng , w here as the di stri ctcourtm ay re vi ew i nt e r l oc ut or y j udgm e nt s a nd or de r s a s w e l l . L oc kw ood v. S nooki e s , 60 F . 3d 724, 72 5 (11 th C i r. 19 95 ). W hether thi s C ou rthas j uri sdi ct i on ov erthe R em ov al O r de r s , the r e f

or e , de pe nds upon w he the rthe y a r e “ f i na l . ” I d. W he the rthe 3 r e m o v a l o f

a tru s te e is a “f

in a l” o r d e ris a n is s u e o f f ir s t im p r e s s io n in th is c ir c u it. G e ne r a l l y s pe a ki ng, a f

i na l de c i s i on i s one “ w hi c h e nds the l i t i ga t i on on the m e r i t s a nd l e a ve s nothi ng f orthe c our tt o do bute xe c ut e the j udgm e nt . ” C a t l i n v. U n ite d S ta te s , 3 2 4 U .S . 2 2 9 , 2 3 3 ( 1 9 4 5 ) . T h e p u rp o s e o f th is r e q u ir e m e n t is to a voi d the w a s t e of

j udi c i a l r e s our c e s a nd the de l a y i nhe r e nti n pi e c e m e a l l i t i ga t i on. T h is C o u r t h a s h e ld , h o w e v e r , th a t ap p e lla te ju r is d ic tio n m u s t b e f le x ib le e n o u g h to h an d l e th e p ract i cal i t i es o f co m p l ex l i t i g at i o n . S ee In re M art i n B ro s. T o o l m ak ers, Inc. , 79 6 F . 2d 14 35 , 14 37 (11t h C i r. 19 86 ). In the bank rupt cy cont ext , thi s C ou rt ha s c onc l ude d tha t“ i ti s ge ne r a l l y the pa r t i c ul a ra dve r s a r y pr oc e e di ng or cont rovers y thatm usthave been fi nal l y r es ol ved rather than t he ent i re bank rupt cy l i t i ga t i on. ” C om m odor e H ol di ngs , I nc . v. E xxon M obi l C orp. , 331 F . 3d 1257, 1259Although this ca se is about the removal of a truste e, the a ppointment of a trustee 4 pre sents thesame“ finality”iss ue . B e c a us ebo th inv olv etheidenti ty of thetr us te e , th efinality analysis is the samefor both situations. See In re Ma

rvel Entmt Group, Inc., 140 F .3d 463, 470-471 (3rd Cir. 1998) 5 (a pp ointment o f t

ru ste eis “ final” ) ; In reCa jun El e c . Po wer C oop. , Inc ., 69 F .3 d 7 46 , 7 48 (5 th Cir . 1 99 5) (s ame ); In reB H &P, Inc ., 94 9 F .2 d 1 30 0, 13 07 (3 rd Cir . 1 99 1) (re mov a l order i s “ final” ); Comm. o f D a lko n Sh ie ld C laima nts v. A. H. Rob ins Co. , Inc ., 82 8 F .2 d 2 39 , 2 41 (4 th Cir. 1987) (order deny

ing request for

appointment of trusteeis “final”) ; Turshen v. Chapman, 823 F.2d 836, 839 ( 4th Cir. 1987) (removal order is “final” f

or purpose s of collateral estoppel); but see In re D elta Servs. Indus., ETC. v. Foster Sec ., Inc., 782 F .2d 1267 (5th Cir. 1986) (appointment of trusteeis not “final”) ; Cash Currenc y Ex ch., Inc. v. Shine, 762 F.2d 542, 546 (7th Cir. 1985) (same ). 11 (11t h C i r. 20 03 ). O the rappe l l a t e c our t s a r e s pl i ta s t o w he the rthe r e m ova l orappoi ntm e ntof a tru st ee i s a “ fi n al ” o rd er. T h e T h i rd an d F o u rth C i rcu i t s h o l d th atth ese 4 deci si on s a re fi nal , bu tthe S eventh C i rc ui tdi sa gree s. T he F i fth C i rc ui thas co n cl u d ed b o th w ays. 5 I n I n r e M a r ve l , the T hi r d C i r c ui tc onc l ude d tha tthe or de rappoi nt i ng the trus t e e m e tthe f

i na l i ty r e qui r e m e nt . I n r e M a r ve l E ntm ’ tG r oup, I nc . , 140 F . 3d 463, 470- 71 ( 3r d C i r . 1998) . I n tha tc a s e , the c our tw r ot e tha tthe purpos e of the f i na l i ty r e qui r e m e nti s j udi c i a l e c onom y buttha tj udi c i a l e f f i c i e nc y w oul d be

“ tur ne d on i t s he a d” i f

the c our tw e r e t o de l a y r e vi e w i ng the trus t e e appoi ntm e nt un t i l af t erthe ent i re bank rupt cy proceedi ng concl ud ed. Id. at47 0. T he courtno t ed that“ [l ] i bera l fi nal i ty c on si dera t i on s i n o rder s app oi nt i ng bank rupt cy trust ee s a re ne c e s s a r y be c a us e the s e or de r s c a nnotbe m e a ni ngf ul l y pos tpone d t o the12

ba nkrupt c y ’ s c onc l us i on. ” I d. T he c our tw r ot e tha ti f i tdi d notha ve j ur i s di c t i on

“ no m ea ni ng ful re vi ew of the order appoint i ng the trust ee coul d ever t ake pl ac e. ” I d. I tw oul d “ s tr a i n[ ] c r e dul i ty t o s ugge s ttha ta r e vi e w i ng c our tw oul d j e t t i s on y e a r s of ba nkrupt c y i nf

i ght i ng, c om pr om i s e [ , ] a nd f i na l de t e r m i na t i ons s ol e l y f or th e p u rp o s e o f

r e v e r s in g ” o n th e is s u e o f th e id e n tity o f

th e tru s te e . I d . W e a r e pe r s ua de d by the l ogi c of the T hi r d C i r c ui ta nd c onc l ude tha tthe r e m o v a l o f

a b a n k ru p tc y tru s te e is a “f in a l” o r d e rap p e a la b le to th is C o u r t. 2 . J ur i s di c t i o n t o e nt e r R e m o v a l O r de r I I a nd Fi na l J udg m e nt W al den argues thatthe bank rupt cy courtdi d n othave j uri sdi ct i on t o ent er R em o v al O rd er II an d th e F i n al Ju d g m en tb ecau se th e j u d g e d i d n o ten t er th ese orders un t i l se vera l days af t erW al den fi l ed her not i ce of appeal of R em ov al O rder I. S he ar gu es thaton ce she f i l ed her not i ce of appeal , the bank rupt cy courtw as d iv e s te d o f

ju r is d ic tio n w ith r e s p e c t to a n y m a tte r s in v o lv e d in th e ap p e a l. T he fi l i ng of a proper noti ce of appeal i s a n eventof j uri sdi ct i on al si gn i fi ca nce— i tconfers j uri sdi ct i on on the appel l at e c ou rtand d i vest s the tri al c our tof i t s c ontr ol ove rthos e a s pe c t s of the c a s e i nvol ve d i n the appe a l . G r i ggs v. P ro v i d en tC o n su m er D i sc. C o . , 4 5 9 U . S . 5 6 , 5 8 (1 9 8 2 ). B u tas recen t l y as A u g u st o f l astyear, th i s C o u rth as reco g n i zed an ex cep t i o n t o th i s ru l e. S ee In re M o sl ey, 49 4 F . 3d 13 20 , 13 28 (11t h C i r. 20 07 ).Mo re ov e r, it i s n ot c le a r why Re mov a l O rde r IIis s ignif ic ant f or thea pp e lla nt. Ev e n if 6 this Court were to conc lude that the bankr uptcy court lac ked jurisdiction to enter Removal Order II , Fe deral Rule of Civil Procedure 52 (which applies in this casevia Fe deral Rules of Ba nkruptcy Procedure §§ 9014, 7052) state s that the finding s of fact and c onclusions of law may be entered orally . Thus, the oral findings of fac t and conc lusions of law would still s tand and Wal den w ould b eremov e d f or thesamere a so ns .

13 I n I n r e M os l e y , the de bt ors oughtdi s c ha r ge of hi s s tude ntl oa n de bt s . T he bank rupt cy courti ss ued i t s f i nd i ng s ora l l y a nd ent er ed a bri ef w ri t t en order di sc hargi ng the debt s. Id. at13 24 . T he cr edi t or then fi l ed an appeal t o t he di stri ct c o u r t. S u b s e q u e n tly , th e b a n k ru p tc y c o u r t is s u e d a s u p p le m e n ta l o r d e rin w h ic h it re st at ed i t s f

i nd i ng s a nd ra t i on al e a nd ci t ed re l evantca se l aw . Id. T he di stri ct c our ta f f i r m e d the ba nkrupt c y c our t ’ s or de r . T hi s C our tc onc l ude d tha tw hi l e the f ilin g o f a n o tic e o f

ap p e a l g e n e r a lly “c o n f

e r s ju r is d ic tio n o n th e c o u r t o f ap p e a ls and d i vest s the di stri ctcourtof i t s c on trol ov ertho se as pect s of the ca se i nv ol ved in th e ap p e a l,” a n e x c e p tio n e x is ts . I d . a t 1 3 2 8 ( q u o tin g G r ig g s , 4 5 9 U .S . a t 5 8 ) . W e c on cl ud ed thatw hen a tri al courtre du ce s i t s ora l fi nd i ng s t o w ri t i ng and ci t es r e le v a n t c a s e la w , it d o e s n o t la c k ju r is d ic tio n to d o s o b e c a u s e th e lo s in g p a r ty fi l ed a not i ce of appeal af t erthe oral hear i ng bu tbefore the entry of the w ri t t en o r d e r . I d . S u c h a s u b s e q u e n to r d e ra i d s ap p e l l a t e r e v i e w. Ac c o r d i n g l y , we c onc l ude tha tthe ba nkrupt c y c our tha d j ur i s di c t i on t o e nt e rR e m ova l O r de rI I a nd th e F in a l J u d g m e n t. 614

3. S tan d i n g to R em ov e t h e T ru st ee W al den n extcont ends thatW al ker l ac ked st andi ng t o requesther r em ov al as trus t e e be c a us e he di d nota l l e ge orpr ove tha the ha d a ny pe c uni a r y i nt e r e s ti n the es t at e. S he ar gu es thatbeca use the bank rupt cy proceedi ng deal tw i th a si ng l e a ss et l i qui da t i on a nd the c l a i m s a ga i ns tthe e s t a t e f a re xc e e de d i t s va l ue ( l i a bi l i t i e s of ove r$1 m i l l i on c om pa r e d t o a s s e t s of $101) , W a l ke rl a c ke d s t a ndi ng a nd, th e r e f o r e , th e b a n k ru p tc y c o u r t la c k e d ju r is d ic tio n . C our t s ge ne r a l l y ha ve he l d tha tt o ha ve s t a ndi ng i n a ba nkrupt c y pr oc e e di ng, th e p a r ty m u s tb e a “ p a r ty i n i n t e r e s t . ” S e e I n r e We s two o d C o m m u n i ty T wo A ss’ n , In c. , 2 9 3 F . 3 d 1 3 3 2 , 1 3 3 7 (1 1 th C i r. 2 0 0 2 ) (an y “ p arty i n i n t erest ” h as a r i ghtt o be he a r d i n a C hapt e r7 ba nkrupt c y pr oc e e di ng) . B utw he the ra de bt or l a c ki ng a pe c uni a r y i nt e r e s ti n the e s t a t e qua l i f i e s a s a“ pa r ty i n i nt e r e s t ” i s a n i s s ue of f i r s ti m pr e s s i on i n thi s c i r c ui t . B e c a us e , how e ve r , w e c onc l ude tha tthe b an k ru p t cy j u d g e m ay sua spo nt e re m ov e the trust ee for l yi ng un der oath, w e nee d n o t a d d r e s s th e q u e s tio n . T h e s ta tu te g o v e r n in g th e r e m o v a l o f a tru s te e d o e s n o t r e q u ir e th a t a “p a r ty i n i nt er es t ” r equestthe re m ov al . 11 U . S . C § 3 24 . Itre ads, “ T he court , af t erno t i ce and a heari ng , m ay re m ov e atrust ee , ot her than t he U ni t ed S t at es trust ee , or an ex am in er , fo r c au se .” Id . T h e s tatu te’s lan g u ag e d o es n o t res trict th e c o u rt’sWalden argues that bec ause Removal Order IIwas adopted almost verbatim from 7 Walker’s propose d order

that we should adopt a

more string ent standard of review. We dec line to do so. See Ander son v. City of B essemer , 470 U.S. 564, 572 (1985) (spe cifically reje cting Walden’s argument); Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1373 n.46 (11th Cir. 15 a bi l i ty t o r e m ove a trus t e e t o onl y thos e i ns t a nc e s i n w hi c h s pe c i f i c pa r t i e s m ove f orr e m ova l . S e e M or ga n v. C a s t , 375 B . R . 838, 848 ( B A P 8th C i r . 2007) (c on cl ud i ng thatl yi ng un der oath p rovi des c ause for s u a s p o n te r e m o v a l ) . We concl ud e that§ 3 24 autho ri ze s the bank rupt cy j ud ge t o rem ov e the trust ee s ua s p o n te w hen, af

t erno t i ce and a heari ng , the j ud ge fi nd s thatthe trust ee had l i ed u n d e ro a th . 4. S u f f i c i e n t L e gal C au s e t o W ar r an t R e m oval W a l de n a s s e r t s tha ti ns uf f i c i e ntl e ga l c a us e e xi s t e d f orr e m ova l . F i r s t , s he s t a t e s tha tthe r e w a s i ns uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e f

orthe j udge t o c onc l ude tha ts he p erj u red h ersel f. S eco n d , sh e co n t en d s th ati n su ffi ci en tev i d en ce ex i st ed b ecau se a l l the e l e m e nt s of

c r i m i na l pe r

j ur y w e r e notpr ove n. S he f ur the rc l a i m s tha ts he di d notne e d t o s ubm i ta ve r i f i e d s t a t e m e nta s t o w he the rs he ha d a ny c onne c t i ons w i th t he cr edi t ors a nd , there fore , she had no du ty t o b e truthful . F i nal l y, she a rgues th atj u stas th ere w as ev i d en ce t o su p p o rta fi n d i n g th atsh e l i ed , th ere w as al so evi dence thatshe di d n otl i e. W e r e vi e w f

a c tua l de t e r m i na t i ons of truthf ul ne s s unde rthe c l e a r l y e r r one ous st andard. In re F re t z, 24 4 F . 3d 13 23 , 13 26 (11t h C i r. 20 01 ). F ac tual fi nd i ng s a re

71997). We need not address whether Walden’s verified statement was voluntary or re quired. 8 16 no tcl ea rl y e rr on eous un l es s w e a re l ef tw i th “ the defi ni t e a nd fi rm conv i ct i on ” that th e c o u r t e r r e d . A n d e r s o n v . C ity o f B e s s e m e rC ity , 4 7 0 U .S . 5 6 4 , 5 7 3 ( 1 9 8 5 ) . A ft era tho roug h revi ew of the re cord, w e c on cl ud e thatsuff i ci entevi dence ex isted to re m o v e th e tru stee . T h e b an k ru p tcy ju d g e f o u n d th at W ald en ’s t e s t i m ony w a s c ontr a di c t or y a nd f a l s e . A f t e rr e a di ng the r e c or d, w e s e e no r e a s on to b e lie v e o th e r w is e . A m p le e v id e n c e e x is ts to s u p p o r t th e ju d g e ’s f in d in g . F urther, W al den’ s a rgum ent s per t ai ni ng t o t he el em ent s of c ri m i nal perj ury m is s th e p o in t. S h e w a s n o t convi cted of c r i m i nal

pe r j ur y . T he ba nkrupt c y j udge f ound tha tW a l de n l i e d. W a l de n’ s c ont e nt i ons , the r e f or e , r e ga r di ng w he the rthe e le m e n ts o f

c r im in a l p e r

ju r y w e r e p r o v e n a r e ir r e le v a n t. W a ld e n a ls o a s s e r ts th a t b e c a u s e s h e w a s n o t re qu i re d t o sub m i ta ver i fi ed s ta te m e n t, th e f

a c t th a t s h e lie d in th a t s ta te m e n t s h o u ld n o t b e h e ld a g a in s t h e r . T h e id e a th a t f

a ls e te s tim o n y w h e n o f

f e r e d to th e c o u r t v o lu n ta r ily is im m u n e to the consequences of l yi ng un der oath i s absurd. L yi ng un der oath i s l yi ng un der o ath . Itd o es n o tm at t er i f th e fal se st at em en ti s v o l u n t ary. 8 T he fa ctthatevi dence w as pres ent ed supp ort i ng bo th si des does notm att er , e ith e r . I n m a k in g f

a c tu a l f in d in g s , th e tr ia l ju d g e r e s o lv e s e v id e n tia r y c o n f lic ts .17

L ykes B ros. , Inc. v. U . S . A rm y C orps of E ng i neer s, 64 F . 3d 63 0, 63 6 (11 th C i r. 19 95 ). W al den fai l s t o sho w cl ea r e rr or. 5. D u e P r oc e s s V i ol at i on W a ld e n c la im s th a t th e b a n k ru p tc y c o u r t v io la te d h e rd u e p r o c e s s r ig h ts b e c a u s e th e b a n k ru p tc y ju d g e im p r o p e r ly a d m itte d r e b u tta l te s tim o n y . S h e a s s e r ts tha ts om e of

the e vi de nc e tha tW a l ke rpr e s e nt e d a tthe r e m ova l he a r i ng w a s not r e but t a l t e s t i m ony a nd, i ns t e a d, w a s t e s t i m ony tha ts houl d ha ve be e n puton i n the c a s e - in - c h ie f

. W a ld e n f

u r th e rc o n te n d s th a t th e b a n k ru p tc y ju d g e im p r o p e r ly foun d t hata c ov erpage on a def ense exhi bi t

— the authent i ci ty of w hi ch w as di s put e d— w a s nota n a uthe nt i c c ove rpa ge a nd tha t , by m a ki ng thi s f i ndi ng, the ju d g e a c te d a s a n a d v e r s e w itn e s s in v io la tio n o f W a ld e n ’s d u e p r o c e s s r ig h ts . A f te ra th r o u g h r e v ie w o f

th e r e c o r d , w e f

in d th e s e a r g u m e n ts w ith o u t m e r it. W e r e v i e w th e a d mi tt a n c e o f e v i d e n c e u n d e ra n a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n s t a n d a r d . U . S. v. B row n, 41 5 F . 3d 12 57 , 12 64 (11t h C i r. 20 05 ). T he deci si on t o adm i tre bu t t al evi dence i s w i thi n t he soun d d i sc re t i on of the tri al j ud ge. Id. at12 65 . T he tri al j ud ge i s i n t he bestpo si t i on t o d ec i de the m att erand i tw i l l on l y be r ever se d i f there is a c le a re r r o ro f

ju d g m e n t. I d . W e s e e n o c le a re r r o r . F ur the r , W a l de n m i s c ons true s the f a c t s a nd l a w a s t o the c ove rpa ge . O ne of the r e s pons i bi l i t i e s of

a tr i a l j udge i s t o m a ke f a c tua l f i ndi ngs ba s e d upon the18

e v id e n c e . S e e D o r s e y v . C o n t’l C a s . C o ., 7 3 0 F .2 d 6 7 5 , 6 7 9 - 6 8 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 4 ) . H er e, the j ud ge m ade afa ctual fi nd i ng base d u po n t he evi dence. H e di d n otac tas a w i tness . W e r evi ew fa ctual fi nd i ng s f or cl ea r e rr or and w e s ee no ne here. S ee A nd er son v . C i ty of B es se m erC i ty, 47 0 U . S . 56 4, 57 3 (19 85 ). C on c l u s i on F or the re as on s s t at ed abov e, w e A F F I R M.