SIGMON v. BUTNER (IN RE JOHNSON BROTHERS TRUCKERS, INC.), 94-5237, 94-5274 (Jan. 26, 1999)(Whitley) - Even though state law is determinative of the practice and procedure to be followed in the execution of a judgment, it is done in furtherance of federal law, giving effect to the rules entitling parties to enforce federal judgments in federal courts. Federal policy supports affording a judgment creditor the right to a writ of execution to enforce money judgments in federal courts, and any aspect of the state practices and procedures that may be inconsistent with this federal policy are not assimilated.

IN RE GOUGE TRUCKING V. SHERMAN BROS., INC., Case No. 91-10678, Adversary Proceeding No. 93-1078 (Bankr. W.D.N.C., July 16, 1993)(J. Hodges) - The Bankruptcy Court denied a Motion for Abstention filed by a defendant in an adversary proceeding involving an automobile accident in California upon a finding that the issues involved well-established state laws, no evidence of forum shopping was apparent, no state proceeding was pending, and the suit could be more timely adjudicated under the auspices of the bankruptcy court. Note: Section 104(b) of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994 amended 28 U.S.C. 1334 to provide that a decision to abstain from hearing certain state law causes of action related to, but not arising under, a title 11 case filed after October 22, 1994, is reviewable by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.GGG3

GENERAL ELECTRIC REAL ESTATE EQUITIES, INC. V. CEDAR CREEK PARTNERSHIP (IN RE CEDAR CREEK PARTNERSHIP), Case No. 91-32032, Adv. Proc. No. 91-3473 (Bankr. W.D.N.C., Jan. 3, 1992)(J. Wooten)- The bankruptcy court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1334 and 28 U.S.C. 157(c)(1) to determine the plaintiff's claims concerning claim and delivery, breach of contract, and prejudgment attachment because the outcome of these matters could conceivably have an effect on the bankruptcy case.

IN RE CLARK, Case No. 90-31651 (Bankr. W.D.N.C., March 26, 1991) - The Court held that it was in the best interests to all parties concerned that this matter proceed under the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court because a majority of the issues in the proceeding were "core" matters dealing with claims against the estate and the estate's right, title and interest in property. The Court denied the defendant's motion for mandatory abstention because the issues could not be timely determined in a state court. The Court denied the defendant's motion for discretionary abstention because it would not be in the best interests of any of the parties for the court to exercise this discretion. The Court denied the defendant's motion for remand and request for a jury trial because by filing a claim in the bankruptcy proceeding the defendant consented to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court and he waived his right to a jury trial by not requesting one initially.

ASHEVILLE FENCE & CONTRACTING CORP. V. G. L. TURNER CO. (IN RE ASHEVILLE FENCE & CONTRACTING CORP.), Case No. A-B-89-10790, Adv. Proc. No. 90-0232 (Bankr. W.D.N.C., Dec. 27, 1990)(J. Hodges) - Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1334(c)(2), mandatory abstention by a bankruptcy court is appropriate only when 1) the proceeding is based on a state law claim that is only "related to " the bankruptcy case, and 2) the action could not have been brought in federal court absent federal question jurisdiction. Because the claim at issue could have been brought in federal district court under that court's diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, the defendants' motion for mandatory abstention was denied. However, the court recommended that the district court withdraw the reference of this bankruptcy case because of the uncertainty and absence of clear authority whether the bankruptcy court had authority, absent the parties' consent, to conduct a jury trial in a related case.

MERRILL GRADING COMPANY, INC. V. LARRY'S WELL & PUMP COMPANY, INC., Case No. A-B-89-10519, Adv. Proc. No. 89-0323 (Bankr. W.D.N.C., May 7, 1990)(J. Hodges) - The court held that a collection action on a post-petition contract between the Chapter 11 debtor and the plaintiff, in which the debtor filed a counterclaim for fraud, was a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 157(b), as a matter concerning the administration of the estate. The court held that the debtor-in-possession is viewed as an officer of the bankruptcy court, authorized to administer estate assets under the supervision of the court, and post-petition contracts with the debtor-in-possession are integral to the estate administration from the date they are entered into. The court also held that there is no constitutional or statutory impediment to the conduct of a jury trial by a bankruptcy judge in a core proceeding.

301 EAST SEVENTH STREET LIMITED PARTNERSHIP V. GELLMAN (IN RE 301 EAST SEVENTH STREET LIMITED PARTNERSHIP), Case No. C-B-89-30166, Adv. Proc. No. 89-0228 (Bankr. W.D.N.C., Jan. 31, 1990)(J. Hodges) - Third -party defendants moved to strike or dismiss a third-party action filed against them by the defendant, Gellman Corporation, on the grounds that the bankruptcy court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the controversy. The court agreed with the third-party defendants finding that the proceeding before the court was neither a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(2)(B)(0) or related to a case under Title 11, 157.

IN RE JONES, Case No. C-B-87-215 (Bankr. W.D.N.C., May 1988)(J. Wooten) - Bankruptcy court decided the state court would be by far the preferable court to adjudicate the debtor's action to enforce her separation agreement and for distribution of marital property. Although the court promised not to disturb the distribution order of the state court, it retained the right to consider creditor claims against any and all property to be distributed, after notice and a hearing.

GORHAM V. THE RAY HAMLET COMPANY, INC. (IN RE WHITE FURNITURE INDUSTRIES OF HUDSON, INC.), 88 B.R. 91 (Bankr. W.D.N.C., Oct. 8, 1987) - The Court held that the Seventh Amendment does not impose a right to trial by jury of an adversary proceeding to avoid a preferential transfer that is a core proceeding and may be resolved by the bankruptcy court, as bankruptcy courts are equitable in nature. The Court further held that for purposes of determining whether there is a right to trial by jury, preference actions are equitable in nature, and the fact that the interest in property at issue may be currency does not alter the equitable nature of the proceeding.