No. 21-713

Victor P. Kearney v. Unsecured Creditors Committee, et al.

Lower Court: Tenth Circuit
Docketed: 2021-11-15
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: 14th-amendment bankruptcy-court bankruptcy-trustee district-court-jurisdiction due-process fiduciary-duty jurisdiction trust-law trustee-appointment
Key Terms:
Securities
Latest Conference: 2021-12-10
Question Presented (AI Summary)

When does a lower district court have the sole discretion to influence, lead, dictate, supersede, deny, or nullify the jurisdiction of the higher federal bankruptcy court's actions or decision(s) by circumventing the appointment of an independent and impartial bankruptcy trustee, that is a requirement of trust law, in a liquidation of an estate trust's assets; thus, disallowing an appellants 14th amendment rights to fair and impartial due process?

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. When does a lower district court have the sole discretion to influence, lead, dictate, supersede, deny, or nullify the jurisdiction of the higher federal bank| ruptcy court’s actions or decision(s) by circumventing | the appointment of an independent and impartial } bankruptcy trustee, that is a requirement of trust law, | in a liquidation of an estate trust’s assets; thus, disal| lowing an appellants 14th amendment rights to fair and impartial due process? Il. Ifa district or federal court judge and/or co-trustees in their capacity make a determination that a spendthrift trust beneficiary is incapable of managing his or her finances as a result of a behavioral pattern, then isn’t it incumbent upon the judicial system to require, mandate, or obligate the district or federal court judge(s) or co-trustees to seek and obtain independent outside opinion(s) from financial and mental health experts prior to administering a final decision? Are the courts considered omniscient in the absence of outside experts? A court cannot commit a person to an institution unless a psychiatrist determines that person is harmful to themselves or society. III. When a district court has already admitted that the design of a trust has inherent language leading to conflict, how can the court claim the settlers couldn’t have anticipated the acrimony, vitriol, and legal battles? Current trust law acknowledges that remainderman should not and cannot be allowed to act as ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED—Continued trustees; this is an inherent conflict of interest (i.e., the , chairman, president, co-trustee, presides as the ap| pointed trustee of beneficiary) that fails the primary basis of a trustee (i.e., fiduciary duty) to protect and serve a beneficiary as opposed to enticing self-dealing that leaves the trustee unchecked, which is significantly relevant in this case and to other spendthrift trusts. |

Docket Entries

2021-12-13
Petition DENIED.
2021-11-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/10/2021.
2021-11-16
Waiver of right of respondents Louis Abruzzo and Benjamin Abruzzo, Trustees of the Mary Pat Abruzzo Kearney Testamentary Trusts B and C to respond filed.
2021-11-16
Waiver of right of respondent Kevin Yearout to respond filed.
2021-11-16
Waiver of right of respondent Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors to respond filed.
2021-09-03
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 15, 2021)

Attorneys

Kevin Yearout
James A. AskewAskew & White, LLC, Respondent
James A. AskewAskew & White, LLC, Respondent
Louis Abruzzo and Benjamin Abruzzo, Trustees of the Mary Pat Abruzzo Kearney Testamentary Trusts B and C
Paul M. FishModrall, Sperling, et al., Respondent
Paul M. FishModrall, Sperling, et al., Respondent
Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors
Thomas D. WalkerWalker & Associates, P.C., Respondent
Thomas D. WalkerWalker & Associates, P.C., Respondent
Victor Kearney
Victor P. Kearney — Petitioner
Victor P. Kearney — Petitioner