FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT AUG 21, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 07- 1152 9 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 02 21 9- CV-T-2 6TGW BKCY No . 04 -BK-1 34 18 -ALP IN RE: EAGLES RESERVE HOMEOW NERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,

D e b t o r .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ GAIL M. FERN, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,
ve rs us EAGLES RESERVE HO MEOW NERS ASSOCIATION, INC., JAM ES P. DELEL LIS, etal., D ef en dants -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the Mi ddl e D istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ (A ug us t 21, 200 7) Be fo re BI RC H , P RY O R and C O X , Ci rc uit Jud ge s.2

PE R CU RIA M: Ga il M. F ern appeals the district court’ s order in a consolidated appeal of three
or de rs of t he ba nk rupt cy

co ur t: on e or de r in th e Ch ap te r 11 ba nk rupt cy cas e, an d t wo orders in an adversary

proceeding related to that case. Fer n argues that the district
co urt c om m itt ed r ev er sib le e rr or

by ( 1) a ff irm ing the bankr

upt cy c ourt’ s a ppr ova l of the Settlem ent Agre em ent betwee n Federa l Insurance Com pany , the f

orm er direc tors
an d un it ow ne rs of

E ag le s R es er

ve H om e o wn e r s A s s o c i at i o n, I nc . a nd E ag le s R es er ve itself; (2) ov erruling Fern’ s objec tion to the settlem ent, essentially on the ground that the bankrupt cy

court lacked subjec t m atter j urisdictio n; and (3) aff irm ing th e denial of the li ft ing of

the auto m at ic stay

a nd the re m an d sought

by F er n. Appe lle es arg ue that ( 1) the bankr

uptcyc ourt m ad e a re as one d de te rm inatio n th at the S ettle m en t Agre em ent was fa i r an d equitable; (2) the bankrupt cy court had subject m atter j ur isd ic tio n; and ( 3) de nia l of the r em an d w as appr opr ia te a s t he ap pr ova l of the
se tt le m en t ex ti ng ui sh edFern ’s cla im s wh ic h a re at is su e. Hav in g re vi ewedth e b rie fs an d re co rd , we fin d no rev ers ib le erro r. Fir st , we conclude that a sufficient nexus exis t ed betwee n the Chapter 11 case of E agles Re se rv e an d F er

n’ s ba d f ai th c la im

a ga ins t F ed er al I nsur an ce Co m pany for the ba nk rupt cy

co ur t t o h av e su bjec t m at te r juri sd ic ti on . M att er of Le m co G yp sum , I nc ., 910 F. 2d 784, 787 (1 1th Ci r. 1990 ). Se co nd, the bankr upt cy co urt di d no t a

buse it s3

dis cr et ionw he n, a ft er

c ondu ct ing ahe ar ing on the Mo tio n f or Appr ova l of

the Se ttl em ent Ag re em en t, it m ad e a “ re as one d de te rm inatio n th at it is fa ir and equitable.” In re U

. S. O il & L iti

gat ion , 967 F
. 2d 4 89, 496 ( 11th C ir
. 199 2)
. T hir d, the bankrupt cy

court did not abuse its discretion in deny ing Fern’ s m otion for re lief fr om the stay a nd r em an d ( an d th e subs eque nt m oti on f or r eh eari ng) b ecau se the Set tl em en t Ag reem en t ex ti ng ui sh edth e cl ai m Fern so ug ht to pu rs ue . Fo r the f or eg oin g r ea sons , the j udgm en t of the dis tr ic t c ourt i s AFFIR MED.