Court Opinion

ID: 2964869
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:32:25.242913+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:43:02.857218
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                               [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] 
                                For the First Circuit
                                ____________________
          No. 97-9003
                                ____________________
                         IN RE: STEVEN J. TENOFSKY, DEBTOR
                                ____________________
                          SAMUEL PERLMAN AND HERBERT RUBIN,
                          TRUSTEES OF H.D.S. REALTY TRUST,
                               AND JOSEPH BRAUNSTEIN,
                      TRUSTEE OF ESTATE OF STEVEN J. TENOFSKY,
                               Plaintiffs, Appellees,
                                         v.
                                 STEVEN J. TENOFSKY,
                                Defendant, Appellant.
                                ____________________
          No. 97-9004
                                ____________________
                         IN RE: STEVEN J. TENOFSKY, DEBTOR
                                ____________________
                                 JOSEPH BRAUNSTEIN,
                                      Appellee,
                                         v.
                                 STEVEN J. TENOFSKY,
                                     Appellant.
                               ______________________
              APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL
                                OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                ____________________
                                       Before
                                Selya, Circuit Judge,
                     Aldrich and Coffin, Senior Circuit Judges.
                                ____________________

               Stephen F. Gordon for appellant.
               John 
                    M. 
                       Timperio with whom Mark 
                                                N. 
                                                   Berman was on brief for
          appellees.
                                ____________________
                                 September 26, 1997
                                 ___________________

               Per 
                   curiam. Appellant Steven J. Tenofsky claims that he
          wrongly was denied a discharge in his Chapter 7 bankruptcy case
          based on his failure to maintain recorded information from which
          his financial condition could be ascertained.    See 11 U.S.C. S
          727(a)(3). The bankruptcy judge's conclusion that appellant's
          records were inadequate and incomplete was affirmed by the First
          Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. Having reviewed the record, we
          find ourselves in full agreement with the reasoning expressed in
          the panel's thorough opinion, and also affirm. We add only the
          following brief comments.
               First, appellant's counsel emphasized at oral argument that
          the bankruptcy judge could not possibly have reviewed the 3,000
          pages of information contained in Mrs. Tenofsky's records during
          the thirty-minute recess between the conclusion of trial and her
          ruling, and that she therefore failed to consider carefully all of
          the evidence before rendering a decision. The judge, however, had
          ample time to review the nature of the material contained in Mrs.
          Tenofsky's records, and to make a judgment that it did not fill the
          gaps about which she was concerned. That the judge did not refer
          to the records in her bench ruling speaks to their relevance, not
          to her lack of consideration of them. 
               Second, we may set aside the bankruptcy court's application of
          the law to the facts only if we detect clear error in its
          assessment of the facts, use of an erroneous legal standard, or an
          error or abuse of discretion in applying the law to the facts. 
                                                                        See
          In  
             re  
                 DN  
                    Associates, 3 F.3d 512, 515 (1st Cir. 1993). The
                                         -3-

          bankruptcy court here used the correct "case-by-case analysis,
          taking into account the particular facts and circumstances of the
          debtor's case," In re Ridley, 115 B.R. 731, 733 (Bankr. D. Mass.
          1990). The judge's evaluation of the facts was informed by her
          view of appellant's credibility, "a key element" that she was in
          the best position to assess.  See id. We find neither error nor
          abuse.
               If appellant had a fighting chance to persuade the bankruptcy
          judge, and, though "weak, indeed almost hopeless, [but not]
          frivolous" before the appellate panel, Lallemand v. University of
          Rhode Island, 9 F.3d 214, 217-18 (1st Cir. 1993), the case surely
          has lost all merit at this stage. We therefore order appellant to
          show cause, within ten days from the issuance of this opinion, why
          we should not award double costs to appellee. See Fed. R. App. P.
          38. 
               Affirmed. 
                                         -4-