Court Opinion

ID: 22567
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 07:59:43+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:04:07.003853
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                     _______________________

                           No. 00-20468
                         Summary Calendar
                     _______________________

In the Matter of: JORGE A. LENTINO, MD; EDUARDO P. LENTINO, MD,

                                                         Debtors,

MARTA A. LENTINO; JORGE A LENTINO, MD; EDUARDO P. LENTINO, MD,

                                                      Appellants,

                             versus

LOWELL CAGE,

                                                        Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________

In the Matter Of: JORGE A. LENTINO; EDUARDO P. LENTINO, MD also
known as Eduardo Pedro Lentino, also known as E. P. Lentino,

                                                         Debtors,

LOWELL CAGE,

                                                        Appellee,

                             versus

‘MARTA A. LENTINO; JORGE A. LENTINO, MD; EDUARDO P. LENTINO, MD,

                                                      Appellants,

_________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Southern District of Texas
                   Civil Docket No. H-97-CV-498
_________________________________________________________________
                          November 22, 2000

Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge:*

          The   essential   issue   on   appeal   here   is   whether   the

district court erred by approving a compromise of controversy

between the Chapter 7 trustee and creditor Cullen Frost Bank &

Trust.   Among other things, the compromise devalued the debtors’

claims of usury against the bank after the debtors’ testimony

failed to support that theory at trial.           We have reviewed the

district court’s order, the briefs, and record excerpts and find no

error of fact or abuse of discretion in the district court’s

decision affirming the trustee’s eminently sensible decision:

          AFFIRMED.

     *
      Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

                                    2