2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 4-6-2004 

# In Re P elu so P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-1805

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" In Re P e lus o " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 870. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/870* Th e H ono rab le R icha rd D . Cud ahy, Circuit Court Jud ge for the U nited States C ourt

of Appeals for t

he Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation. NOT PRECEDE NTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT NO. 03-1805

________________ IN RE: Angelo R. Peluso, Debtor EI LEEN K. PELUS O, Appellant v. ANGE LO R. PELUSO

____________________________________ On A ppeal Fro m the U nited States D istrict Court

For the Dist

rict of New Jersey (D.C. Civ. No. 02-cv-3524) District Judge: H onorab le Garrett E. B rown , Jr.

_______________________________________

Argued December 18, 2003 Bef or e: ROTH, MCKEE AND CUDAHY , * Circuit Judges . (Fil ed: April6, 2004)2

Matthew A. Peluso, Esquire ( Argued) Stryker, T ams & D ill Two Penn Plaza East Newark, NJ 07105 Counsel for Appell ant Linda J. Schwimmer, Esquire (Argued) Markowtiz, Gravel le & Schwimmer 3131 Princeton Pike Lawrencevill e, NJ 08648 Counsel for Appell ee

_______________________ OPI NION

_______________________ RO TH , Circuit

Judge : Eileen Pe luso appe als the District Cou rt’s order affirming the Ban kruptcy Cou rt’s orde r den ying her m otion to avoid the sale of p rope rty. The p roced ural his tory of this case and the detai ls of appel lant’ s clai ms are well- known to the part ies, set forth in t

he D ist ric t C ou rt’ s th or ou gh op in io n, a nd ne ed no t b e d isc us se d a t le ng th . B rie fly, appell ant’s ex-husband fi led for di vorce and l ater f iled f or bankruptcy. Appellant file d a
m ot io n i n t he B an kr up tcy C ou rt to av oi d t he sa le o f a fle a m ar ke t w hi ch w as ow ne d b y a corporation in which her husb and ha d a forty-nine perce nt share. The Bank ruptcy Court den ied th e m otio n. A ppe llant app eale d to the D istrict Co urt w hich aff irme d th e or der . Ap pella nt fil ed a time ly notic e of app eal a nd w e ha ve ju risdi ction und er 2 8 U .S.C . § 158(d).3

Ou r review of the Distric t Cou rt’s and the B ankr uptcy C ourt’s le gal co nclus ions is plena ry, and w e revie w th e Ba nkru ptcy Co urt’s fa ctual f inding s und er the c learly
erro neo us s tand ard . In re I ndian Palms Associ ates, Ltd. ,61 F .3d 1 97, 2 03 ( 3d C ir. 19 95) . We need not reach the issueof whether the chall enge to the sale i s more properlybrought in an adv ersary complaint rather tha n a mo tion becau se we a gree w ith the District Cou rt that t he m otio n fa ils on the m erits. The majo rity of app ellant’s a rgum ent relies on h er asse rtion tha t the state cour t in the divorce acti on found that she and her ex- husband had a joi nt marital interest in the flea market . However, we agree wit h the Dist

rict Court that

the Famil y Court

never found that

Mr. Peluso had an i ndividualownership i nteres t in t he flea marke t. Rather, t he state court foun d that appe llant was en titled to a fifty-percent share of he r husban d’s forty -nine percent i nteres t in t he corporat

ion which owned the fl ea market. “Under allof t he se ci rc ums t an ce s, Mrs . Pe l us o i s e nti t l edt o ash ar e o f p l ai nti ff ’s i nt er es t i n P &H Enterprises.” A pp. at 70a. T hus, the flea m arket wa s not a part of M r. Peluso’s ban kru ptcy e state , see In re C assis , 220 B.R. 979, 983 (Bankr. N.D. I owa 1998), and the BankruptcyCourt lac ked juri sdiction to voi d the sal e. We also agree with the District Court that

the Bankrupt cy Court

did not havejuri sdiction over t he liqui dation of

the nondebtor corporation’s asset s. For th e abo ve rea sons , as w ell as tho se set f orth b y the Dis trict Co urt, w e w ill affirm the D istrict Court’s M arch 6, 200 3, order.