Case Name: In re: Frank P. FRANCIS, Debtor, Ed Schory & Sons, Inc. Appellant, v. Frank P. Francis Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-07-31
Citations: 297 B.R. 766
Docket Number: No. 02-3288
Parties: In re: Frank P. FRANCIS, Debtor, Ed Schory & Sons, Inc. Appellant, v. Frank P. Francis Appellee.
Judges: Before DAUGHTREY and ROGERS, Circuit Judges; and QUIST, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Bankruptcy Reporter
Volume: 297
Pages: 766–766

Head Matter:
In re: Frank P. FRANCIS, Debtor, Ed Schory & Sons, Inc. Appellant, v. Frank P. Francis Appellee.
No. 02-3288.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
July 31, 2003.
Before DAUGHTREY and ROGERS, Circuit Judges; and QUIST, District Judge.
The Honorable Gordon J. Quist, United States District Judge for the Western District of Michigan, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant Ed Schory & Sons, Inc. ("Schory") argues that the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel erred in affirming the bankruptcy court's confirmation of the Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan proposed by the debtor Frank Francis ("Francis"). Schory argues that Francis's plan was not offered in "good faith" under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(3). Having had the benefit of oral argument and having carefully considered the record on appeal, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we are persuaded that the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel was correct in affirming the bankruptcy court's decision. Because the reasoning which supports the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's decision has been articulated in that court's opinion, see Ed Schory & Sons. Inc. v. Francis (In re Francis), 273 B.R. 87 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2002), the issuance of a further detailed written opinion by this court would be duplicative and serve no useful .purpose. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed upon the reasoning employed by the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel in its opinion dated February 7, 2002.