Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

The plaintiff obtained a mortgage in 2007 and later fell behind on payments, leading to a repayment agreement. In 2013, servicing of the loan transferred to new entities, and in 2016 the plaintiff filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, triggering an automatic stay against debt collection efforts. During bankruptcy, the mortgage servicers sent monthly account statements, payoff statements (at the plaintiff’s request), and 1098 tax forms. Each document contained clear disclaimers indicating they were not attempts to collect a debt from someone in bankruptcy. The plaintiff alleged that these communications amounted to prohibited debt collection and included inaccurate calculations, asserting violations of both federal and state consumer protection laws.The United States District Court for the District of Maryland first granted summary judgment to the servicers on federal claims, determining the documents were purely informational and not debt collection efforts. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s state law claims after dismissing all federal claims, and dismissed those claims without prejudice. The plaintiff appealed, contesting the district court’s findings regarding the nature of the communications and the dismissal of his state law claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the district court’s summary judgment decisions de novo. The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s rulings, holding that none of the communications constituted attempts to collect a debt under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, nor did they violate the bankruptcy stay. The court found the disclaimers in the documents clear and unequivocal, and noted that payoff statements were sent only at the plaintiff’s request. Because federal claims were properly dismissed, the appellate court upheld the district court’s decision to dismiss the state law claims for lack of jurisdiction. View "Palazzo v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC" on Justia Law

Corelle, a company that sold Instapot multifunction cookers, entered into a 2016 master supply agreement (MSA) with Midea, the manufacturer. Under this arrangement, individual purchase orders (POs) were used for each transaction, detailing specific terms such as price and quantity. Each PO typically included Corelle’s own terms, including indemnity provisions. In 2023, Corelle filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and, as part of its reorganization plan, sold its appliances business and assigned the MSA to the buyer. However, Corelle sought to retain its indemnification rights for products purchased under completed POs made before the assignment.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas denied Midea’s objection to this arrangement, finding that the POs were severable contracts distinct from the MSA. This meant the indemnification rights related to completed POs remained with Corelle. Midea appealed, contending that the MSA and all related POs formed a single, indivisible contract that should have been assigned in its entirety. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision, emphasizing that the structure of the MSA and the parties’ course of dealing supported the divisibility of the POs from the MSA.On further appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the standards applied by the lower courts, the interpretation of the contracts, and the application of 11 U.S.C. § 365(f). The appellate court held that the bankruptcy court did not err in finding the POs were divisible from the MSA, that Corelle’s retention of indemnification rights did not violate bankruptcy law, and that the lower courts applied the correct standards of review. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "GuangDong Midea v. Unsecured Creditors" on Justia Law

Two individuals, each of whom held credit card debt with Goldman Sachs, filed for bankruptcy—one under Chapter 13 and the other under Chapter 7—in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Virginia. After receiving notice of the bankruptcy filings, Goldman Sachs allegedly continued collection efforts on the debts, including repeated communications warning of adverse credit reporting. The debtors claimed these actions violated the automatic stay imposed by the Bankruptcy Code. They commenced an adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy court under 11 U.S.C. § 362(k), seeking damages and injunctive relief, and proposed to represent a class of similarly situated individuals.Goldman Sachs responded by moving to compel arbitration of the debtors’ claims based on an arbitration clause in the credit card agreements, and sought to stay the adversary proceeding. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Virginia denied Goldman Sachs’ motion, finding that the claim for a willful violation of the automatic stay was a core bankruptcy matter, and that enforcing arbitration would irreconcilably conflict with the purposes of the Bankruptcy Code. The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia affirmed, holding that arbitration would undermine the bankruptcy court’s authority to enforce the automatic stay and disrupt the centralized resolution of bankruptcy-related disputes.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling. The Fourth Circuit held that compelling arbitration of a statutory and constitutionally core claim for violation of the automatic stay would conflict with the underlying purposes of the Bankruptcy Code, including centralization of claims, uniform enforcement, the debtor’s “fresh start,” and the specialized expertise of bankruptcy courts. The court concluded that under these circumstances, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to compel arbitration. View "Goldman Sachs Bank USA v. Brown" on Justia Law

After a divorce, a former husband and wife entered into a settlement agreement incorporated into their dissolution decree, in which the wife was awarded the marital home and agreed to assume responsibility for a specific home-related debt—a loan with Wells Fargo. The agreement also provided that the husband could seek damages for any harm to his credit if payments were not made on time. Several years later, the wife stopped making payments on the loan and filed for bankruptcy, after which the debt to Wells Fargo was ultimately discharged. The husband did not make any loan payments himself and later filed a contempt petition, claiming that the wife’s failure to pay the loan damaged his credit and caused him financial losses, including increased interest on another loan and a lost opportunity to secure a home-construction loan.The Marion Superior Court held a hearing and found the wife in contempt for willfully failing to pay the loan but did not award the husband damages. The court found the alleged damages to be speculative and unproven due to insufficient supporting evidence. The husband appealed, and the Indiana Court of Appeals partially reversed, instructing the trial court to award damages. However, the appellate opinion was not certified, and the trial court nevertheless issued a revised order in line with the appellate mandate.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that the trial court did not clearly err in declining to award damages, as the husband’s evidence of financial harm was speculative and inadequately supported. The Court further held that the trial court’s revised order was void because it was issued while the appeal was pending and before the appellate opinion was certified. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s original order and reminded lower courts and parties not to act based on uncertified appellate opinions. View "Norris v. Norris" on Justia Law

Several landowners in South Texas leased mineral rights to a company that later filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. During the bankruptcy proceedings, the company, responding to a collapse in oil prices during the COVID-19 pandemic, temporarily halted production on wells within the leased premises for about 40 days before resuming operations. The bankruptcy court subsequently confirmed the company’s reorganization plan, which included a set deadline for filing administrative expense claims.The landowners, asserting that the company’s temporary cessation of production had automatically terminated their leases under the leases’ terms and Texas law, filed a motion in bankruptcy court seeking administrative expense priority for damages related to alleged post-termination trespass. They also sought to have a state court adjudicate whether the leases had terminated and whether trespass damages were owed, arguing that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction or should abstain from deciding these underlying state-law issues. The bankruptcy court determined that it had core jurisdiction to decide the administrative expense claim, which included resolving the validity of the underlying lease-termination and trespass claims. The court found that the temporary cessation did not terminate the leases, denied the administrative expense claim, and declined to abstain. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas affirmed, rejecting arguments concerning jurisdiction, abstention, and the application of Texas law.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the bankruptcy court properly exercised jurisdiction over the administrative expense claim, which necessarily included resolving the underlying state-law lease-termination and trespass issues. The Fifth Circuit further held that, under the express terms of the leases and Texas law, the temporary cessation of production did not result in automatic termination, as production was resumed well within the contractual 120-day period. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower courts’ rulings. View "Storey Minerals v. EP Energy E&P" on Justia Law

Esplanade Properties Corporation, a subsidiary of R.H. Macy & Co., owned the Macy’s Parcel in Kenner, Louisiana. In 1992, while Esplanade Properties was under bankruptcy protection and subject to an automatic stay, Jefferson Parish assessed ad valorem taxes for that year. In 1993, the Sheriff conducted a tax sale for nonpayment of those taxes, but the sale was later nullified because it occurred during the bankruptcy stay. For nearly two decades, the Parish took no action to collect the 1992 taxes. After subsequent transfers, the property was acquired by Esplanade Mall Realty Holding, LLC, which in 2018 received notice of a large sum due for past taxes, including the 1992 taxes, interest, and costs. The company disputed the collectibility of the old taxes, citing a statutory three-year limitation on tax sales.The 24th Judicial District Court initially dismissed the suit on procedural grounds, and the Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed. The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed and remanded. While proceedings continued, the property was sold to Pacifica Kenner, LLC, which was substituted as plaintiff. The trial court ultimately ruled that La. R.S. 47:2131—which prohibits tax sales for taxes more than three years overdue—was unconstitutional because it conflicted with Louisiana constitutional provisions regarding tax collection and prescription. The trial court denied declaratory relief to the plaintiff.The Supreme Court of Louisiana reviewed the case and chose to avoid the constitutional issue, finding it unnecessary to resolve the dispute. Interpreting the relevant statutes, the court concluded that the Sheriff was required to include all statutory impositions, including the 1992 taxes, interest, and costs, in the 2020 tax sale price. The court held that the redemption price for the property must likewise include these amounts. The judgment was reversed, rendered, and remanded to the trial court to calculate the redemption price consistent with this interpretation. View "ESPLANADE MALL REALTY HOLDINGS, LLC VS. LOPINTO" on Justia Law

The dispute centers on a series of complex financial transactions involving a Wyoming family and their businesses, a local bank, and a commercial lender. The plaintiffs, including a married couple and their closely held LLC, entered into various loans and mortgages related to their commercial property and business operations. When financial difficulties arose—exacerbated by a downturn in the oil and gas industry—the parties restructured their debt, resulting in a 2017 mortgage and, after the operating company filed for bankruptcy, a 2019 settlement agreement. The plaintiffs later alleged that the bank and lender’s actions and omissions caused them to lose equity in both their home and commercial property, and the defendants counterclaimed for breach of the settlement agreement and sought attorney fees.The District Court of Natrona County dismissed or granted summary judgment for the bank and lender on all claims and counterclaims, finding the mortgage unambiguously secured two loans and the bank had no duty to release it after only one was repaid. It also concluded the plaintiffs could not establish justifiable reliance on any alleged misrepresentations, interpreted the settlement agreement as permitting (but not requiring) the lender to record the quitclaim deed after a sale period, and found no breach by the lender. The district court further ruled the plaintiffs breached the agreement by filing suit, thus entitling the bank and lender to attorney fees.On review, the Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court’s decisions dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims, holding the mortgage secured both loans and the bank acted within its rights. The Supreme Court, however, reversed the grant of summary judgment to the bank and lender on their counterclaims, finding that filing the lawsuit was not a breach of the settlement agreement or its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Consequently, the award of attorney fees and costs to the bank and lender was also reversed. View "Adams v. ANB Bank" on Justia Law

Two individuals entered into a loan agreement and mortgage with a bank in Puerto Rico, using their home as collateral. After a decade, they faced financial difficulties and stopped making payments. The bank denied a request to modify the loan but proposed a short sale. The bank then initiated foreclosure proceedings in Puerto Rico’s Court of First Instance, resulting in a judgment against the borrowers. Multiple short sale offers were rejected until one was conditionally accepted, but the sale did not close in time and the home was foreclosed. Subsequently, the bank garnished funds from the borrowers, who then filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Puerto Rico confirmed the borrowers’ Chapter 13 plan, noting their intent to pursue claims against the bank. The borrowers filed an adversary proceeding seeking damages and other relief. The bank moved to dismiss the adversary complaint, but the bankruptcy court denied this motion, allowing the case to proceed. The borrowers later filed a similar complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico and moved to withdraw the adversary proceeding to the district court. The district court denied the withdrawal as untimely and dismissed the separate federal case. After the borrowers completed their bankruptcy plan and received a discharge, the bankruptcy court dismissed the adversary proceeding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the bankruptcy court erred in finding it automatically lost jurisdiction over the adversary proceeding post-discharge. The appellate court vacated and remanded the case for further proceedings, instructing the lower courts to reassess jurisdiction and properly address the borrowers’ motion for withdrawal and their jury trial request. View "Guallini-Indij v. Banco Popular de Puerto Rico" on Justia Law

Richard and Lucia Parks, along with their family real estate business Parks Diversified, L.P. and related entities, became involved in a legal dispute after their son, David Klein, filed a voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition on behalf of Parks Diversified. The Parkses asserted that Klein did not have the authority to file the petition and claimed he did so as part of a scheme to take control of family assets. Despite these objections, the parties entered into a stipulation to dismiss the bankruptcy case, with the Parkses waiving certain claims. Later, the Parkses and their entities filed a complaint in California state court against Klein and others, alleging various causes of action related to the alleged unauthorized bankruptcy filing.Following this, the law firm representing some of the defendants requested the bankruptcy court to reopen the case, and the state court complaint was removed to the bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy court dismissed the claims for failure to state a claim and granted special motions to strike. On appeal, the United States District Court for the Central District of California found that the bankruptcy court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the case, holding that the issue of corporate authority to file a bankruptcy petition was not jurisdictional. The district court remanded with instructions to vacate orders where jurisdiction was lacking and to remand remaining claims to state court.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that, consistent with precedents from the Second and Third Circuits, a lack of corporate authority to file a bankruptcy petition does not deprive the bankruptcy court of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court clarified that while proper authorization is mandatory, it is not jurisdictional, and thus affirmed the lower court’s conclusion on this point. View "TALON DIVERSIFIED HOLDINGS INC. V. BECKER" on Justia Law

Steven and Virginia Savage were officers and sole shareholders of a company that designed and installed digital planetarium equipment. When their company experienced financial distress, they used personal funds and credit cards to support business operations, but the company eventually defaulted on a large loan personally guaranteed by the Savages. In the year preceding their bankruptcy filing, the Savages received over $700,000 from the company, which they failed to fully disclose in their bankruptcy filings. Their bankruptcy schedules did not mention this income, and significant portions of the transferred funds were not satisfactorily explained, especially regarding rent payments from the company to the Savages and the use of those funds.After the company and the Savages filed for bankruptcy, the creditor, Coastal Capital, objected to the Savages’ discharge in their Chapter 7 proceedings. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Hampshire held a bench trial and found that, although the Savages explained most of the company funds they received, they failed to account for over $56,000. The court denied the Savages a discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(5) for failing to satisfactorily explain the loss or deficiency of assets. The Savages’ post-trial motions were denied, and the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire affirmed the bankruptcy court’s ruling.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that § 727(a)(5) does not require a “substantial” loss of assets to deny discharge, nor does it require that the unaccounted-for funds be enough to pay all liabilities. It also found no clear error in the bankruptcy court’s factual determinations and rejected the Savages’ arguments regarding destruction of evidence and the sufficiency of their explanations. The denial of discharge was affirmed. View "Coastal Capital, LLC v. Savage" on Justia Law