Opinion
No. 16-8035
06-02-2017
In re: JOHN JOSEPH LOUIS JOHNSON III, Debtor. JOHN JOSEPH LOUIS JOHNSON III, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RFF FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, LP, Defendant-Appellant.
COUNSEL ARGUED: Jeffrey M. Levinson, LEVINSON LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellant. Jeffrey A. Yeager, HAHN LOESER & PARKS, LLP, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Jeffrey M. Levinson, LEVINSON LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellant. Jeffrey A. Yeager, Marc J. Kessler, Daniel A. DeMarco, Rocco I. Debitetto, HAHN LOESER & PARKS, LLP, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee.
By order of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, the precedential effect of this decision is limited to the case and parties pursuant to 6th Cir. BAP LBR 8024-1(b). See also 6th Cir. BAP LBR 8014-1(c). File Name: 17b0004n.06 Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.
No. 14-57104—John E. Hoffman, Judge. Before: HARRISON, OPPERMAN and WISE, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judges.
COUNSEL
ARGUED: Jeffrey M. Levinson, LEVINSON LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellant. Jeffrey A. Yeager, HAHN LOESER & PARKS, LLP, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Jeffrey M. Levinson, LEVINSON LLP, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appellant. Jeffrey A. Yeager, Marc J. Kessler, Daniel A. DeMarco, Rocco I. Debitetto, HAHN LOESER & PARKS, LLP, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee.
OPINION
MARIAN F. HARRISON, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judge. RFF Family Partnership, LP ("RFF"), appeals the decision of the bankruptcy court to enter summary judgment for John Joseph Louis Johnson, III ("debtor") on his complaint for declaratory relief seeking a declaration that: (1) RFF does not have a valid security interest in, or assignment of, debtor's player contract or the salary payments under the contract; and (2) even if it did, RFF's interest with respect to the salary debtor earned postpetition was cut off by Bankruptcy Code § 552.
After carefully reviewing the record, the applicable law, and the parties' briefs, the Panel finds that the bankruptcy court correctly set forth the facts and the governing law. This Panel's issuance of a full opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose and would be duplicative, and so we affirm the grant of summary judgment, adopting the reasoning of the bankruptcy court's August 16, 2016, opinion, 554 B.R. 448 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2016). Accordingly, the bankruptcy court's order granting the debtor's motion for summary judgment is AFFIRMED.