right to a set off, the court drew analogies to mandatory subordination under 11 U.S.C. § 510(b) (providing that certain claims arising from the purchase of a “security” of the debtor “shall be subordinated to all claims or interests that are senior to or equal the claim or interest represented by such security”) and equitable subordination under 11 U.S.C. § 510(e)(1) (authorizing the bankruptcy court “under principles of equitable subordination [to] subordinate for purposes of distribution all or part of an allowed claim to all or part of another allowed claim”). See id. at 903-07. The appellants concede that the right to a set off under § 553 is merely permissive and subject to the discretion of the bankruptcy court. In re Diplomat Electric, Inc., 499 F.2d 342, 346 (5th Cir.1974) (<HOLDING>). In this case, had the bankruptcy court
holding that bank had right to set off funds in a customers account against debt that the bank customer had incurred as a surety or guarantor recognizing that a critical safeguard set forth in miranda is a persons right to cut off questioning holding that a creditors right to set off survives a final discharge ofdebt holding that the trial courts denial of a motion to set aside the verdict for insufficient evidence is reviewable only for abuse of discretion holding that the right to a set off in bankruptcy is discretionary and reviewing the denial of a set off for clear abuse