In Re Berta Castro and Eustacio Castro, Debtors. Eustacio Castro Berta Castro v. Jose Perez Liliana Miranda

Good Law
919 F.2d 107·1990 WL 176942·1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 20051
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 16, 199089-55113California763 words

Opinion

Opinion

Appellant Perez appealed to the district court from an adverse determination by the bankruptcy court on a non-core dispute over an alleged oral contract for sale of his house to appellees, the Castros. Perez claims in this appeal that the district court failed to give him proper de novo review of the bankruptcy court’s findings. Under 28 U.S.C. § 157 (c)(1):

This statute was modeled on Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, which provides for de novo review of magistrates’ decisions that are dispositive of the merits of a case. Bankruptcy Rule 9033, 1987 Advisory Committee’s Note. De novo review by the district court preserves a party’s right to a determination of non-core bankruptcy issues by an Article III judge. See Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 81 , 102 S.Ct. 2858, 2876 , 73 L.Ed.2d 598 (1982); United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 618 (9th Cir.1989).

Although new hearings are not required for de novo review, a review of the record is required. “An appellate court must be satisfied that a district judge has exercised his non-delegable authority by considering the actual testimony.” United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d at 618 (regarding review of magistrate’s…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.