This Emerging Issues Analysis
examines whether, post-Stern v. Marshall, parties can consent to a bankruptcy
court's entry of final judgment in a related matter. The circuits are split on
the issue, with the Sixth Circuit denying the bankruptcy court such power, but
the Ninth Circuit recently holding that bankruptcy judges can constitutionally
enter final orders in related matters with consent. The Sixth Circuit is alone
in its position.
The U.S. Supreme Court's
decision in Stern v. Marshall, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 4791, 131 S. Ct. 2594,
180 L. Ed. 2d 475 (June 23, 2011), has generated significant comment in both
cases and commentary. Stern v. Marshall held there are certain
circumstances under which bankruptcy judges cannot constitutionally issue final
orders, even though Congress has statutorily provided otherwise. The question
that this commentary addresses is whether the parties to a dispute can consent
to a bankruptcy judge entering a final order in those cases where the judge
cannot constitutionally do so under the Stern v. Marshall holding. The
circuits are already split on the issue, with the Sixth Circuit holding that
consent does not suffice to allow a bankruptcy judge to enter a final order in
a related matter and the Ninth Circuit holding that it does.
The Stern v. Marshall Holding
The Stern v. Marshall case involved years-long disputes between parties
and estates. "Stern" was executor of the estate of Vicki Marshall,
a/k/a Anna Nicole Smith ("Ms. Smith") estate. "Marshall"
was executrix of the estate of E. Pierce Marshall, son of Ms. Smith's husband. While
alive, Ms. Smith had filed a bankruptcy case in California. Pierce Marshall had
filed a proof of claim in Ms. Smith's bankruptcy case. She filed a
counterclaim. The bankruptcy court entered a judgment for Ms. Smith on the
counterclaim. Subsequently, a Texas probate court entered a contrary judgment
against Ms. Smith on the same facts. It became critical for res judicata
purposes to know whether the bankruptcy court's judgment was an effective final
judgment, because if it was, then as the first judgment it was binding.
However, after the judgment was entered, Marshall challenged the bankruptcy
court's constitutional authority to enter the judgment, and the Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed with him on appeal.
The Supreme Court held that the counterclaim filed by Ms. Smith was not a
dispute as to which an Article I judge could constitutionally enter a final
order, even though 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(C) so provided. This was because
bankruptcy courts cannot issue final orders on a "state common law
claim" that is "independent of the federal bankruptcy law and not
necessarily resolvable by a ruling on the creditor's proof of claim in bankruptcy."
131 S. Ct. at 2611, 180 L. Ed. 2d at 496.
subscribers can access enhanced versions of the opinions and annotated versions
of the statutes cited in this article:
Stern v. Marshall, 2011 U.S. LEXIS 4791, 131 S. Ct. 2594, 180 L. Ed. 2d 475 (June 23,
28 U.S.C. § 157
Access the full version of "James M. Lawniczak on Whether
Parties Can Consent to a Bankruptcy Judge Entering a Final Order" with
your lexis.com ID. Additional fees may be incurred.
If you do not have a lexis.com ID, you can purchase this commentary and additional Emerging Issues Commentaries from the LexisNexis Store.
Lexis.com subscribers can access the complete
set of Emerging Issues Analyses for Bankruptcy Law and the Bankruptcy Area of Law page.
For more information about LexisNexis products
and solutions connect with us through our corporate site.