(caption unavailable)

*Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that
have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on
the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless
expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."
Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion
should not be published.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 93-1144
No. 93-1146
Summary Calendar
IN THE MATTER OF: R. DON WRIGHT and MICKI WRIGHT, Debtors,
R. DON WRIGHT
Appellant,
VERSUS
JOHN DEERE INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT CO., Creditor, NCNB TEXAS
NATIONAL BANK, Creditor, and STANLEY WRIGHT, Trustee,
Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Northern District of Texas
(1:91-CV-058-C; 1:91-CV-059-C)
(September 3, 1993)
Before: JOLLY, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM*:
R. Don Wright, Debtor-Appellant, appeals the district court's
affirmance of the bankruptcy court's imposition of a constructive
trust and equitable lien on Wright's domicile in favor of John
Deere Industrial Equipment Co., Creditor-Appellee ("John Deere").

-- 1 of 6 --

1Appeal no. 1144 arises from the Order dated January 25, 1993
in adversarial case no. CA-1-91-058-C; Appeal no. 1146 arises from
the Order dated January 22, 1991 in adversarial case no. CA-1-91-
059-C. Neither the Appellant nor the Appellees have distinguished
between the two adversarial cases and orders on appeal. In
addition, the only thing that the Appellant challenges is the
imposition of the equitable lien and constructive trust in favor of
John Deere, the imposition of which was contained in both orders of
the district court. Thus, for purposes of these appeals, we have
consolidated the analysis of the two orders and the constructive
trust issue within this one opinion.
2
The constructive trust and equitable lien were imposed as part of
the bankruptcy court's entry of default judgment against Wright for
his repeated refusals to follow the bankruptcy court's lawful
orders that he allow John Deere and other creditors to inspect
personal property located within his domicile. Concluding that
under the law of the case doctrine we are bound by an earlier
decision of this court upholding the default judgment, we affirm
the orders of the district court.
I
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Both of Wright's instant appeals, No. 93-1144 and No. 93-1146,
arise out of the district court orders1 affirming the bankruptcy
court's imposition of sanctions that in turn produced the entry of
default judgment in favor of creditors John Deere and NCNB Texas
National Bank. They and the trustee, Stanley Wright, had moved for
sanctions because of Wright's repeated refusal to obey the

-- 2 of 6 --

2In re R. Don Wright, No. 92-1604 (5th Cir., Dec. 22, 1992)
[Wright I].
3Wright I, at 6.
3
Bankruptcy Court's inspection orders. After conducting a full
evidentiary hearing the bankruptcy court entered orders in favor of
the trustee and the creditors.
In an earlier appeal Wright challenged the order imposing
sanctions in favor of the trustee. In Wright I,2 we reviewed those
sanctions and concluded that none were erroneous, including those
striking Wright's answer and imposing a default judgment in favor
of the creditors. As we stated in Wright I :
Wright invoked the aid of the court in seeking a
benefit he desired--a discharge in bankruptcy. As long
as the court did his bidding he was inclined to obey.
When orders adverse to Wright's position were issued he
chose to ignore them without seeking interlocutory appeal
or mandamus relief. Wright's conduct constituted open
and notorious contempt of the bankruptcy court. We
cannot and will not countenance such.3
In this appeal Wright challenges the district court's orders
affirming the bankruptcy court's imposition of sanctions in favor
of John Deere. Specifically, Wright challenges the sanction that
imposed an equitable lien and constructive trust as part of the
default judgment in favor of John Deere.

-- 3 of 6 --

4E.g., Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. v. Director, Office of
Workers' Compensation Programs, 976 F.2d 934, 937 (5th Cir. 1992)
(stating that one panel is bound by the decision of a prior panel
absent intervening legislation or a superseding decision by the
Supreme Court or this court en banc).
5Wright I, at 1, 6.
4
II
ANALYSIS
Wright asserts several grounds to challenge the district
court's orders affirming the equitable lien and constructive trust
in favor of John Deere. We do not address the merits of Wright's
challenges, however, because we are bound by the earlier decision
of this court in Wright I.4
In Wright I, while deciding the trustee's appeal, we addressed
whether the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in striking
Wright's answer and entering default judgment in favor of the
creditors, John Deere and NCNB. After a review of the record we
concluded that Wright's open and notorious defiance of the
bankruptcy court amply justified the imposition of those
sanctions.5 The following colloquy with the bankruptcy court
reveals the extent of Wright's contempt:
Q: So Mr. Wright if the court issues a fourth order, or
a fifth order compelling you to allow the creditors entry
to your residence, to inspect and appraise the entire
contents, you will continue to refuse to obey those
orders?
A: I will refuse to let you in the house; yes, sir.
The sanction striking Wright's answer and entering default
judgment in favor of John Deere establishes the validity of John

-- 4 of 6 --

6E.g. NCNB Texas National Bank v. Carpenter, 849 S.W.2d 875,
879 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1993, no writ); First Interstate Bank v.
Bland, 810 S.W.2d 277, 286 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth 1991, no writ);
Pace v. McEwen, 617 S.W.2d 816, 818 (Tex. Civ. App.--Houston [14th
Dist.] 1981, no writ).
5
Deere's equitable lien and constructive trust. As a result of
Wright's answer being stricken, the allegations contained in John
Deere's original and amended complaint are taken as true--including
the allegation that Wright fraudulently diverted proceeds from John
Deere for the improvement of his property. By entering the default
judgment the bankruptcy court granted John Deere's prayer for
relief--which included the request that Wright's property be
impressed with an equitable lien and constructive trust for
$403,933.34.
Consideration here of Wright's sole colorable basis for
challenging the equitable lien and constructive trust--that they
cannot be placed on non-fraudulently acquired homestead property as
a matter of law--is also pretermitted by the sanctions upheld by a
previous panel of this court in Wright I. Wright's challenge is
predicated on classifying his property as a homestead as of the
time he misappropriated the funds. Texas law, however, places the
burden of establishing the homestead character of the property on
the one claiming the homestead exemption.6 Because Wright
subjected himself to sanctions that prevented him from offering
proof on this issue, he cannot now claim that his property was a
homestead during the relevant period without requiring us to
revisit whether those sanctions were properly imposed. Again, that

-- 5 of 6 --

7See e.g., E.E.O.C. v. Intern. Longshoremen's Ass'n, 623 F.2d
1054, 1058 (5th Cir. 1980) (stating that the "law of the case" rule
precludes review of findings of fact and conclusions of law made by
an appellate court in a prior appeal of the case at issue).
8In affirming the district court, and thus the bankruptcy
court, we caution Wright that, like his defiance of those courts,
any frivolous or contemptuous actions in this court relative to the
subject matter of this and previous decisions could subject him to
the full panoply of sanctions at our disposal.
6
inquiry is precluded by the law of the case.7
III
CONCLUSION
Wright's open defiance of the bankruptcy court led to
extensive but justifiable sanctions having far reaching
consequences. One of those consequences was the imposition of an
equitable lien and constructive trust on his domicile. Because we
conclude that our previous decision bars reexamination of the
validity of the sanctions on which the district court's orders are
based, the orders of the district court are
AFFIRMED.8

-- 6 of 6 --