Opinion ID: 220543
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Underlying Summary Judgment Order

Text: Partners argues that the district court erred in finding that it breached the settlement agreement after Leedom Financial allegedly rendered an untimely payment. A review of the record reveals that Partners stipulated that the only issues preserved for appeal were whether Leedom Financial presented its claim to Partners as required by Chapter 38 and the reasonableness of the district court’s attorney’s fee award. We will not review Partners’s waived arguments that the district court erred in awarding summary judgment to Leedom Financial on its counterclaim under the guise of reviewing the propriety of the attorney’s fee award. See generally McFarland v. Leyh (In re Tex. Gen. Petroleum Corp.), 52 F.3d 1330, 1337 n.9 (5th Cir. 1995) (“The parties stipulated before trial that standing was the only issue before the bankruptcy court. A stipulation of issues at trial binds the parties on appeal.” (citation omitted)); Bridgeport Tank Trucks v. Lien Agent (In re EnRe LP), 457 F.3d 493, 494 n.1 (5th Cir. 2006) (holding that the issue of whether the appellant could recover fees under 11 U.S.C. § 502 was waived, as “all parties stipulated that ‘the only remaining legal issue [is] the proper interpretation and application of 11 U.S.C. 506(b)’”); SeaQuest Diving LP v. S & J Diving Inc. (In re SeaQuest Diving LP), 579 F.3d 411, 425-26 (5th Cir. 2009) (finding that an argument for remand based on material fact issues was waived because a party stipulated before the bankruptcy court that there were no genuine issues of material fact).