Opinion ID: 767381
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the yousif appeal

Text: 4 The district court made the following findings pertinent to the Yousifs' bankruptcy appeal: 5 Halbert submits that this Court should enter a summary judgment in his favor and against the Yousifs because the Bankruptcy Court did not cite any law and found no facts upon which to support its denial of his request for attorney fees relating to services rendered in the Yousifs' bankruptcy. This Court agrees. All of his deficiencies, which were the subject of the two opinions by the Bankruptcy Court, relate to his conduct in the Tanners bankruptcy proceeding. In fact, there is no discussion or evaluation of Halbert's compliance or noncompliance with his disclosure and disinterestedness duties in the Yousif case.39 6 Therefore, the entry of a summary judgment by the Bankruptcy Court in favor of the Yousifs is vacated. Further, the issue of whether a summary judgment should be entered on Halbert's application for fees in the Yousifs' case is remanded for further consideration by the Bankruptcy Court. 7 [39] Although the Bankruptcy Court did recite the Rule 2016(b) disclosures made by Halbert in the Yousif case, In re Florence Tanners, 209 B.R. at 442, it did not make any factual findings or legal conclusions that are pertinent to those disclosures. 8 (emphasis added). This judgment by the district court effectuating a remand to the bankruptcy court in the Yousifs' case is not a final judgment and is therefore not appealable; the case was vacated and remanded to the bankruptcy court for necessary factual findings and/or legal conclusions. See, e.g., Marlow v. Rollins Cotton Co., 146 F.3d 420, 422 (6th Cir. 1998) (A decision is final if it 'ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.') (quoting Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233 (1945)).