From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Muth v. Muth (In re Muth)

United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Tenth Circuit.
May 1, 2014
514 B.R. 719 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 2014)

Opinion

Nos. CO–13–055 12–26897.

2014-05-1

In re Steven E. MUTH, also known as Steve, also known as Stephen, Debtor. Steven E. Muth, Appellant, v. Kimberly Muth, Ernest Muth, Linda Sease, Jose Hurdago, Securities and Exchange, Heckenback Suazo & Dave LLP, Wink & Wink, P.C., Litvak Litvak Mehrtens and Epstein, P.C., Credit Service, Enhancrcvr Co., Metro Collection, Hwarfield, Midland MCM, Budget CTRL, Stellar REC, AFNI, Revenue Enterprize, NCO FIN/35, BRS, Apollo Credit, FST Premier Bank, and HSBC Bank, Appellees.


The bankruptcy court's factual findings, upon which its decision to dismiss Debtor's bankruptcy was based, are not “clearly erroneous.” In addition, the decision to dismiss does not amount to an abuse of discretion. Finally, we conclude that Debtor was not denied due process in the bankruptcy court proceedings. The order of dismissal is therefore AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Muth v. Muth (In re Muth)

United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Tenth Circuit.
May 1, 2014
514 B.R. 719 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 2014)
Case details for

Muth v. Muth (In re Muth)

Case Details

Full title:In re Steven E. MUTH, also known as Steve, also known as Stephen, Debtor…

Court:United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Tenth Circuit.

Date published: May 1, 2014

Citations

514 B.R. 719 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 2014)

Citing Cases

In re RHA Stroud, Inc.

If cause is found, the Court must dismiss the bankruptcy case. Muth v. Muth (In re Muth), 514 B.R. 719 (10th…

Jacobs v. United States Tr. (In re Jacobs)

The Court reviews a bankruptcy court's dismissal “for cause” under an abuse of discretion standard. In re …