Opinion ID: 453583
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Bankruptcy Court's Jurisdiction over Debtor's Adversary

Text: Proceeding 9 Initially, we are faced with appellant's argument that the bankruptcy court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the debtor's MVSFA claim. It contends that the debtor's claim is a related proceeding unconnected to and independent from the bankruptcy proceeding which, under the Emergency Bankruptcy Rule (Interim Rule) 1 adopted by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia on December 24, 1982, should have been brought in Georgia state court. See Interim Rule p (d)(3). 10 The district court held that the debtor's complaint was in the nature of a counterclaim against the claim filed by Chrysler Credit, and thus was not a related proceeding. 42 B.R. at 375-76; see Interim Rule p (d)(3)(A) (Related proceedings do not include ... counterclaims by the estate in whatever amount against persons filing claims against the estate). We agree. Furthermore, assuming arguendo that this was a related proceeding, the district court complied with the Interim Rule by conducting de novo review and arriving at an independent judgment of the issues involved. See Interim Rule p (d)(3)(B), (e)(2)(A)(iii), (e)(2)(B); Moody v. Amoco Oil Co., 734 F.2d 1200, 1209-10 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 386, 83 L.Ed.2d 321 (1984).