Court Opinion

ID: 20220
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 07:32:17+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:29.012317
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                          FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                         _______________________

                               No. 99-20036
                         _______________________

In the Matter of: JACOBO XACUR,

                                                             Debtor.
FELIPE XACUR; JOSE MARIA XACUR; JACOBO XACUR,

                                                          Appellants,

                                 versus

BANCO NACIONALE DE MEXICO SA; BANCOMER SA;
BANCO MEXICANO SA; BANCA SERFIN SA; BANCO
BILBAO VIZCAYA-MEXICO SA; CONFIA SA; BANCO
INVERLAT SA; CALIFORNIA COMMERCE BANK,

                                                           Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
                for the Southern District of Texas
                          (H-97-CV-3283)
_________________________________________________________________
                           March 8, 2000

Before DAVIS, JONES and MAGILL* Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:**

             The court has carefully considered this appeal in light

of the oral arguments, briefs, and pertinent portions of the

record.      We are convinced that the district and bankruptcy courts

did not clearly err in determining that the debts owed by the

    *
         Circuit Judge of the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.
        **
      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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
brothers were neither contingent nor subject to bona fide dispute.

There   was    no   reversible   error   in   the   exercise   of   personal

jurisdiction over Jacobo Xacur, who lives, does business in and

owns property in the United States and Southern District of Texas.

This court lacks jurisdiction to consider the district court’s

denial of rehearing based on a request to abstain from hearing

these cases pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 305(c).

              The judgment of the district and bankruptcy courts are

therefore AFFIRMED.

                                     2