IN RE ADANA MORTGAGE BANKERS, INC., DEBTOR. GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, ET AL., APPELLANTS,

v.

ADANA MORTGAGE BANKERS, INC., ET AL., APPELLEES

Citator

Cited By

• In re Bialac v. Bialac, 712 F.2d 426 (9th Cir. 1983)
  …or beneficial rights and interest, that the debtor may have in property of another.’ 124 Cong.Rec. H 11,096 (Sept. 28, 1978) (Statement of Rep. Edwards).... In re Adana Mortg. Bankers, Inc., 12 B.R. 989, 1002 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Ga.1980), appeal dismissed, 687 F. 2d 344 (11th Cir.1982). We hold that a pre-foreclosure right to redeem is a property right under section 541 whether it stems from ownership of the entire underlying property or only a fractional share. (c) Section 362(a) automatic stay. The applicabili…
• Ishmael Jaffree v. Wallace, 837 F.2d 1461 (11th Cir. 1988)
  …ved of all conclusive effect, both as res judicata and as collateral estoppel. IB Moore’s Federal Practice Para. 0.416[2], at 517 (1984). Appellants cite several cases that differ significantly from the case sub judice. See, e.g., Quarles v. Sager, 687 F. 2d 344 (11th Cir.1982) (when the district court’s judgment is vacated, it has no preclusive effect); Hicks v. Quaker Oats Co., 662 F. 2d 1158 (5th Cir.1981) (discussing the use of offensive collateral es-toppel and the “alternative ground” rule when a losi…
• Concordia v. Bendekovic, 693 F.2d 1073 (11th Cir. 1982)
  …to pass on this issue. The distinction between these two doctrines for purposes of this appeal is important only in determining the degree of finality required to apply each doctrine. See Restatement of Judgments 2d § 13. See also Quarles v. Sauger, 687 F. 2d 344 (11th Cir.1982) (“The term ‘res judicata’ has been applied to both claim preclusion and issue preclusion.”). Throughout the remainder of this opinion; we will, unless otherwise noted, use the term res judicata to describe the preclusive effect whi…