Court Opinion

ID: 9453316
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:09:35.136215+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:36.284426
License: Public Domain

BARNES, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
I dissent. The interpretation of the October 20, 1959 compromise, as made by the referee and followed by the district court, is reasonable in view of the various rights waived therein and the general tenor of the instrument.
The trustee thought it best there be no appeal. Seymour-Heath could have appealed, had he desired, and been able, to post a bond. This he did not do. The July 30, 1965 order is final. Any appeal by American Pumice has lapsed. Thus, the question here involves the compromise of a judgment, not a cause of action. The October 20, 1959 compromise refers, in paragraphs 1(g) to Heath’s right to approve any compromise “of the condemnation action,” not to approve any compromise, or the compromise of any judgment, after trial. It may be presumed that the parties anticipated an ultimate solution by some judgment in the condemnation proceedings.
The parties did not state that Seymour-Heath had a right to veto any compromise of a judgment. The parties anticipated that if Seymour-Heath was not satisfied with the judgment obtained, he could force an appeal, but required the posting of a bond. This he never accomplished.
While it is true that the proposed compromised judgment will insure that attorneys are paid and that the condemnee waives interest in a substantial sum due from the government, the government waives any claims for taxes on the award *334(including capital gains tax), and waives certain large tax renegotiations’ claims against two of the corporations, which amount to almost half a million dollars (though the validity of such government claim is disputed). Each of these waivers can be of substantial value to the bankrupt estate.
I do not believe this appellate court has the omniscience to overrule the judgment of the trustee, the referee, the district court, and reputable counsel (particularly skilled in condemnation matters), on the assumption that an original “owner of the stock of the corporations” has better judgment as to the value of the properties condemned, after there has been a proper trial and judgment, and where the possible proceeds relate to a bankruptcy of some twenty-one years standing.