Paleologos v. Nickless, et al.
Case Date: 01/27/1998
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 97-1903
|
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 97-1903 ATHENA PALEOLOGOS, Appellant, v. DAVID M. NICKLESS, ET AL., Appellees. ____________________ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS [Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge] ___________________ ____________________ Before Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________ Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________ ____________________ Athena Paleologos on brief pro se. _________________ David M. Nickless and Nickless and Phillips on brief for ___________________ _______________________ appellee. ____________________ January 23, 1998 ____________________ Per Curiam. We have carefully reviewed the record and __________ briefs on appeal and affirm the judgment of the Bankruptcy Court. Although the avoidance provisions of 11 U.S.C. 549 may sometimes operate in a manner which appears harsh, bankruptcy courts must exercise their equitable powers within the confines of the Bankruptcy Code. Norwest Bank _____________ Worthington v. Ahlers, 485 U.S. 197, 206 (1988). The court ___________ ______ has no power to upset the scheme of distribution established by the Code. In re SPM Manufacturing Corporation, 984 F.2d ____________________________________ 1305, 1311 (1st Cir. 1993). With respect to Appellant's remaining arguments, she made no proper showing that Trustee's action was time-barred or otherwise inconsistent with the requirements of the Code.1 1 Affirmed. Loc. R. 27.1. ________ ____________________ 1 Appellant's request for oral argument by telephone is 1 hereby denied. -2- |