Case: 11-14046 Date Filed: 07/13/2012 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-14046
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 8:11-cv-00724-SCB,
BKCY No. 8:09-bk-06495-MGW
In Re: SUMMIT VIEW, LLC,
ASHLEY GLEN, LLC,
RIVERWOOD, LLC,
Debtors.
__________________________________________________________________
THADDEUS FREEMAN PLLC,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SUMMIT VIEW, LLC,
ASHLEY GLEN, LLC,
RIVERWOOD, LLC,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(July 13, 2012)
Case: 11-14046 Date Filed: 07/13/2012 Page: 2 of 3
Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, EDMONDSON, Circuit Judge, and RESTANI,*
Judge.
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from an order of the district court upholding an order of
the bankruptcy court in which the bankruptcy court granted the debtors’ motion to
enforce settlement agreement in favor of Appellees, Summit View, LLC, Ashley
Glen, LLC, and Riverwood, LLC, and over the objection of the Appellant,
Thaddeus Freeman, PLLC (“Freeman”). Freeman, counsel for the creditor, WDG
Construction, Inc., (“WDG”) opposed the enforcement of the settlement agreement
on the ground that his charging lien attached to plan payments due under the
settlement agreement. The bankruptcy court, however, disagreed, and ruled that
Freeman’s charging lien did not attach to plan payments, and further, that Freeman
was estopped from enforcing his lien as to those payments. The district court
affirmed the bankruptcy court’s order and Freeman then perfected this appeal.
The issues presented on appeal are (1) whether the bankruptcy court and the
district court correctly held that Freeman’s charging lien applies only to the funds
recovered by his client under the settlement agreement; (2) whether the bankruptcy
*
Honorable Jane A. Restani, United States Court of International Trade Judge, sitting by
designation.
2
Case: 11-14046 Date Filed: 07/13/2012 Page: 3 of 3
court and the district court correctly ruled that Freeman’s charging lien did not
attach to the subject plan payments subsequent to their assignment under the
settlement agreement; and (3) whether the bankruptcy court and district court
correctly held that Freeman was estopped from asserting a charging lien.
In bankruptcy proceedings, we review factual findings for clear error and
conclusions of law de novo. Gen. Trading, Inc. v. Yale Materials Handling Corp.,
119 F.3d 1486, 1494 (11th Cir. 1997). We review the district court’s conclusions
of law, that were in turn reflective of conclusions of the bankruptcy court, de novo.
Id.
After reviewing the record, reading the parties’ briefs and having the benefit
of oral argument, we affirm the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy
court’s order granting the debtors’ motion to enforce settlement agreement based
on the district court’s well-reasoned order filed on August 1, 2011.
AFFIRMED.
3