You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Furr v. Barnett Bank of Marion County (In re S & K Air Power of Florida, Inc.)

Citations: 166 B.R. 193; 30 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 2100; 1994 Bankr. LEXIS 616Docket: Bankruptcy No. 93-31894-BKC-SHF; Adv. No. 93-1088-BKC-SHF-A

Court: United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida.; April 11, 1994; Us Bankruptcy; United States Bankruptcy Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In the matter before Bankruptcy Judge Steven H. Friedman, Barnett Bank sought to remand an action to the Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit in Marion County, Florida. The case stemmed from S. K Air Power of Florida, Inc., which initially filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy but was subsequently converted to Chapter 7, with Robert Furr appointed as Trustee. The Trustee removed the action to the bankruptcy court on October 15, 1993. Barnett Bank argued that the removal was improper and untimely. The court found that under 28 U.S.C. § 1452, the case should have been removed to the District Court for the Middle District of Florida, and the removal also exceeded the 90-day limit set by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9027. The court emphasized that jurisdiction cannot be waived if procedural requirements are not met. Consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction and granted Barnett Bank's motion to remand the case to the appropriate state court, resulting in the issuance of an Order of Remand.

Legal Issues Addressed

Jurisdiction and Procedural Compliance

Application: The court lacked jurisdiction due to non-compliance with procedural requirements for removal.

Reasoning: The Court highlighted that unlike venue, jurisdiction cannot be waived, and since the removal did not comply with the necessary procedural requirements, it lacked jurisdiction over the action.

Remand of Improperly Removed Cases

Application: The court granted the motion to remand the case to the state court due to improper removal.

Reasoning: Consequently, the Court granted Barnett's motion to remand the case back to the Circuit Court.

Removal of Cases under 28 U.S.C. § 1452

Application: The case was improperly removed to the bankruptcy court instead of the district court, as required by the statute.

Reasoning: The Court noted that under 28 U.S.C. § 1452 and relevant case law, removal was to the incorrect court.

Time Limit for Removal under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9027

Application: The removal was not performed within the 90-day limit stipulated by the procedural rule.

Reasoning: The removal was also beyond the 90-day limit for removal as specified by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9027.