IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-30759
Summary Calendar
In the matter of:
GREGORY J. AVERY and KATHLEEN R. AVERY
Debtors
GREGORY J. AVERY and KATHLEEN R. AVERY
Appellants,
versus
JEAN O. TURNER
Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Louisiana
(95-CV-1823)
February 17, 1997
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Gregory and Kathleen Avery appeal the Bankruptcy Court’s grant of partial summary
judgment in favor of the Trustee, Jean Turner, for monies received by Gregory Avery as a result of
the pre-petition agreement dissolving his law partnership with Ray Orrill. The Averys claim that the
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined t hat this opinion should not be
published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
bankruptcy court violated the mandate of our previous opinion, Turner v. Avery, 947 F.2d 772 (5th
Cir. 1991), by granting summary judgment on the trustee’s claims for all the monies due Avery from
Orrill on cases assigned to Orrill in the partnership dissolution agreement. In a thorough and able
opinion, the district court affirmed the bankruptcy court. We are persuaded that the district court
reached the correct result for the right reasons. Our prior opinion did not address those cases handled
by Orrill or the fees they generated, and it did not vacat e findings of fact made by the bankruptcy
court. The bankruptcy court correctly decided that funds received by Avery on a pre-petition
agreement on which Avery performed no personal services after the petition date is properly made
part of the bankruptcy estate. The same is true of residual partnership funds that resulted from the
dissolution of the law partnership.
The Avery’s also ask for a new trial. Our review of the record reveals no error or abuse of
discretion by the bankruptcy court’s refusal to grant appellant’s motion for a new trial on the basis
of inadvertence and excusable neglect.
The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
2