Opinion ID: 835208
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Was the adversary proceeding the same matter as the appeal of the settlement?

Text: The accused next argues that the appeal in which he represented the Ziegenhagens and First Call was a different matter from the adversary proceeding against Dorsey. The accused argues that the appeal was a contested matter. A contested matter is a matter that addresses factual and legal issues arising out of particular statutes, procedures, and practices in bankruptcy. By definition, a contested matter does not include an adversary proceeding. See Advisory Committee Note to FRBP 9014 (Whenever there is an actual dispute, other than an adversary proceeding, before the bankruptcy court, the litigation to resolve that dispute is a contested matter.). According to the accused, the appeal and the adversary proceeding were, therefore, different matters. The accused's argument is not well-taken. The appeal was from the outcome of the adversary proceeding. Whether or not the appeal falls within the definition of a contested matter, the dispute in that appeal centered on the settlement reached in the adversary proceeding, and the adversary proceeding and the appeal were both parts of a single bankruptcy proceeding. Thus, both the adversary proceeding and the appeal were the same matter for purposes of DR 5-105(C).