{
  "id": 1884311,
  "name": "Bobby BRATTON v. MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, JACKSON & TUCKER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bratton v. Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Jackson & Tucker",
  "decision_date": "1990-05-14",
  "docket_number": "89-205",
  "first_page": "308",
  "last_page": "310",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "302 Ark. 308"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "788 S.W.2d 955"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "45 B.R. 15",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "B.R.",
      "case_ids": [
        6551469
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "25",
          "parenthetical": "debtor has no standing"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/br/45/0015-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "561 F.Supp. 1151",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F. Supp.",
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1165",
          "parenthetical": "debtors lack capacity to maintain suit"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "773 F.2d. 213",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        18848,
        6124633
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/773/0213-01",
        "/br/52/0213-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 254,
    "char_count": 3173,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.866,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.994323369783225e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8519554614960178
    },
    "sha256": "b021ece9dee1b889c5a9cb46eb81425b0f1e04311b6ca3764f48eada2dbd4d76",
    "simhash": "1:fb8e5e15d5ccf3c7",
    "word_count": 518
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:34:09.444418+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Hays, Glaze, Turner and Price, JJ., not participating."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Bobby BRATTON v. MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, JACKSON & TUCKER"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Ian W. Vickery, Special Justice.\nOn March 30,1989, the appellant, Bobby Bratton, filed his initial complaint seeking damages in this action in the Circuit Court of Searcy County. At the time of the filing of this complaint, the record reflects that Bratton had previously filed for relief under Chapter VII of the Bankruptcy Code and that a bankruptcy trustee had been appointed to the case. The Chapter VII proceedings resulted from the conversion of a Chapter XI filed in 1982.\nThe issue of whether or not Bratton had standing, in addition to challenges to the sufficiency of the pleadings and venue, was disputed in the initial answer of the appellee, Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Jackson & Tucker, on April 21, 1989, and was subsequently raised as a procedural bar, together with other matters, in appellee\u2019s motion to dismiss filed May 9, 1989.\nAfter considering numerous pending motions in the matter, including appellee\u2019s motion to dismiss, the trial court entered an order of dismissal on June 16, 1989, finding that \u201c[p]laintifFs alleged cause of action is property of his pending bankruptcy estate, therefore Plaintiff lacks standing to maintain this action.\u201d\nWe agree and affirm.\nIn this case, there is no evidence that the bankruptcy trustee abandoned this claim or that the trustee joined in or ratified Bratton\u2019s filing of this complaint in circuit court. In fact, the evidence in the record indicates the contrary.\nIn Vreugdenhil v. Hoekstra, 773 F.2d. 213 (8th Cir. 1985), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the issue of standing and stated:\nAs noted, the district court also concluded appellants lack standing to maintain this suit. Authorities have in general agreed (although on varying rationales) that a debtor may not prosecute on his own a cause of action belonging to the estate unless that cause of action has been abandoned by the trustee. Baker v. Data Dynamics, Inc., 561 F.Supp. 1151, 1165 (W.D.N.C. 1983) (debtors lack capacity to maintain suit); In re Homer, 45 B.R. 15, 25 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 1984) (debtor has no standing) ....\nSimilarly, in In re Homer, supra, the court stated:\nThe defendants\u2019 counterclaim for conversion became property of the bankruptcy estate when the debtors filed their petition for relief under title 11 of the United States Code. See \u00a7 541 of the Bankruptcy Code. Thereafter, the claim was assertable only by the trustee in bankruptcy unless, after the trustee\u2019s refusal to prosecute the claim, the court should restore its ownership to the debtors. That is not shown to be the case at bar.\nIt is clear that the claim asserted in circuit court remains the property of the bankrupt\u2019s estate, and must be prosecuted, if at all, by the trustee unless it is abandoned to the debtor. Accordingly, we affirm, and need not consider other issues raised in this appeal.\nAffirmed.\nSpecial Justices John Stroud and John D. Eldridge join in this opinion.\nHays, Glaze, Turner and Price, JJ., not participating.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Ian W. Vickery, Special Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Art Dodrill, for appellant.",
      "Wright, Lindsey & Jennings, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Bobby BRATTON v. MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, JACKSON & TUCKER\n89-205\n788 S.W.2d 955\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered May 14, 1990\nArt Dodrill, for appellant.\nWright, Lindsey & Jennings, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0308-01",
  "first_page_order": 334,
  "last_page_order": 336
}