The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
03-10236•In The Matter of: JERRY W. BIESEL v. Karl Billings
03-10236Court of Appeals for the Fifth CircuitSep 22, 2003
*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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
September 22, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-10236
In The Matter of: JERRY W. BIESEL; ELIZABETH S. BIESEL
Debtors
* * * * * * * * * *
JERRY W. BIESEL; ELIZABETH S. BIESEL,
Appellants,
v.
KARL BILLINGS,
Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Before BARKSDALE, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
BENAVIDES, Circuit Judge:*
Jerry W. Biesel and Elizabeth S. Biesel (Biesels) appeal from
the orders of the bankruptcy court which denied their claim that a
contract with Karl Billings (Billings) was terminated. Because of
the finding by the bankruptcy court that the contract was not
-- 1 of 2 --
2
terminated, the bankruptcy court found the contract to be executory
at the time of the filing of the Chapter 11 case and awarded
damages to Billings resulting from the Biesels’ rejection of the
contract. On appeal, the Biesels claim that the bankruptcy court
erred in the following respects:
1) in finding that the Biesels waived the July 29, 1994
deadline for termination of the contract;
2) in finding the Biesels are estopped from asserting that
title-related problems excused performance of the
contract or was grounds for terminating the contract; and
3) in applying a higher standard to Jerry Biesel’s conduct
because he was an attorney.
We have carefully reviewed the briefs and record and
considered the arguments presented at oral argument and conclude
that no error requiring reversal of the bankruptcy court judgment
has been shown. We affirm essentially for the reasons set forth in
the two orders entered by the district court in the appeals of the
bankruptcy court orders at issue. See Orders of Judge Sidney
Fitzwater dated January 28, 2003 and April 24, 2002.
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.