Court Opinion

ID: 9649326
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:48:48.562175+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:09.727020
License: Public Domain

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REHEARING
THIS CAUSE came on for hearing on a Motion for Rehearing filed by Joe M. Rodgers & Associates, Inc. (Rodgers). The Motion is addressed to a previous order entered by this Court on May 28, 1980 which order overruled an objection to the dismissal of the above-captioned proceeding, which objection was also filed by Rodgers. The Motion does not allege that subsequent to the entry of the order of dismissal new facts have come to light which, first, would alter the result and which, second, could not have been discovered with due diligence prior to the entry of the Order. The Motion alleges, however, that the Order of May 28, 1980, i. e. the Order of Dismissal, contained manifest errors of law in that it relied on the case of Paskow v. Calvert Fire Insurance Company, 579 F.2d 949 (5th Cir. 1978) and also that it held that Rodgers subordinated its position to the rights of the Bank, a conclusion which is not supported by the record.
*73The Court heard the argument of counsel for the respective parties, considered the entire record again, including the Order under challenge, and is of the opinion that while it may be argued that the decision in the Paskow, supra case is not necessarily controlling, and may be distinguished from the facts involved in this controversy and that the narrow interpretation of the subordination agreement by Rodgers may not extend to certain monies held by the state court receiver, the Order of Dismissal was still proper for the following reasons:
First, the record is without any dispute that there is no equity in the one and only property owned by the Debtor, an apartment house complex; second, it is evident that there is no desire by the Debtor to obtain rehabilitation through Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code; third, there is no viable business entity which could be rehabilitated under this Chapter since, as noted, the sole property is completely encumbered; and fourth, the Debtor has only one creditor, Rodgers, whose interest is adequately protected if the case stands dismissed since Rodgers will have the same rights which it could assert in a non-bankruptcy forum against the Debtor and there is no other interest which requires protection.
For the reasons stated, this Court is satisfied that the Motion for Rehearing is without merit.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Motion for Rehearing filed by Joe M. Rodgers & Associates, Inc. be, and the same hereby is, denied.