Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

Northwest and the Pilots Association filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that their post-bankruptcy retirement benefit plan (MP3) complied with the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001-1461. Appellants (older Pilots) counterclaimed arguing that the MP3 retirement benefit plan violated ERISA, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 621-634, and several state laws prohibiting age discrimination. Under the MP3, the contributions of all of the pilots were based on their protected final average earnings, which could not be calculated without the use of age. However, that did not mean that the older Pilots' contributions have been reduced because of their age. There were several factors in the MP3 that could reduce an older pilots' projected final average earnings. While promotions and pay increases were correlated with age, they were analytically distinct and therefore not reductions in contributions because of age. Service ration and the frozen Pension Plan offset also both contributed to potential differences in contribution. Finally, the court rejected older Pilots' argument that the district court improperly disregarded the declaration of their expert witness. Therefore, the court held that the MP3 did not reduce the older Pilots' benefits because of age and therefore affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Northwest Airlines, Inc., et al. v. Phillips, et al." on Justia Law

This was an appeal by Triology from an order of the bankruptcy court holding that certain funds held by Trilogy constituted sale proceeds which were subject to the mechanic liens of J.E. Dunn. The court held that the bankruptcy court's decision was not based on clearly erroneous factual findings or erroneous legal conclusion and affirmed the judgment. View "Trilogy Development Co. v. J.E. Dunn Construction Co., et al." on Justia Law

Debtor appealed an order of the bankruptcy court sustaining the objection of the Chapter 7 trustee to her claimed exemption of her interest in an annuity. The court concluded that res judicata applied to the debtor's claim of an exemption; and even if res judicata did not apply the bankruptcy court properly disallowed the debtor's claimed exemption. The court also affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision on the bases that: (1) it properly determined that the record did not show that the Company was "authorized to do business" as a "stipulated premium" or "assessment plan" insurance company, as required for Mo. Rev. Stat. 377.330 and 377.090 to apply to the annuity; and (2) the annuity was not insurance, as required for any of the three statutes at issue. View "Bryan v. Stanton" on Justia Law

Debtors appeal the judgment of the bankruptcy court denying in part their motion under 11 U.S.C. 522(f)(1) to avoid certain liens held by the Estate of Leon Jerome Heimer. The court held that the amount the Heimer estate advanced to pay off the loans secured by the bank's lien against debtors' vehicles was not secured by a judicial lien. Accordingly, the court affirmed the bankruptcy court's judgment. View "Carter, et al. v. Estate of Leon J. Heimer" on Justia Law

Debtor appealed the order of the bankruptcy court approving the Chapter 7 Trustee's "Amended Final Report, Proposed Distribution, and Motion for Abandonment," over debtors' objection. The court found that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in interpreting its order to overrule debtors' objection and to approve the Trustee's Amended Final Report. Debtors waived their rights to settlement funds under the plain language of the order. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Boyher v. Radloff" on Justia Law

Appellant appealed the district court's order of the bankruptcy court denying his motion to determine his claim against the chapter 11 estate of appellees. The court held that because the bankruptcy court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear appellant's motion to determine his claims under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the court affirmed the bankruptcy court's order denying appellant's motion. View "Cawley v. Celeste, et al." on Justia Law

Appellants, Robert A. Sears and Korley B. Sears, appealed from the June 8th, 2011 order of the bankruptcy court overruling their objections to claims that were filed by the Sears Family Members in the bankruptcy case of the debtor and disallowing Claim No. 26 of Korley. The court held that the bankruptcy court correctly disallowed Claim No. 26 where Korley's proof of claim provided no legal basis for liability by the debtor. The court also agreed with the bankruptcy court's determination that Robert and Korely failed to overcome the presumptive validity of the proofs of claim filed by the Sears Family Members. The court finally held that there was no need for the bankruptcy court to allow Robert and Korley more time to develop the record or a hearing with testimony and cross-examination of witnesses, before it ruled on the claim objections. View "Sears, et al. v. Sears, et al." on Justia Law

Robert A. Sears appealed from a bankruptcy court order finding that the bankruptcy estate of AFY was contractually and equitably entitled to receive the cash value of a life insurance policy, owned by Sears and paid for by AFY, to reimburse AFY for policy premiums paid. The court held that the bankruptcy court possessed the jurisdiction and constitutional authority to enter final judgment and AFY was not contractually or equitably entitled to the cash value of the policy. Accordingly, the decision of the bankruptcy court was reversed. View "Badami v. Sears" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed the order of the bankruptcy court granting a motion for summary judgment filed by the trustee of debtor's bankruptcy estate. The trustee sought, and the bankruptcy court entered, an order determining that defendant did not have a security interest in certain of debtor's personal property. The court held that the record supported the bankruptcy court's determination that Wells Fargo had the authority to terminate defendant's successor in interest's (NSB) financing statements. The court also affirmed on the basis that termination of the financing statements was unnecessary because NSB's security interest in the property was extinguished when Loan No. 7 was paid in full in September 2007. View "Mutual of Omaha Bank v. Lange, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the order of the bankruptcy court determining that debt owed to it by debtor was not excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(6). The court concluded that plaintiff had presented an interpretation of the evidence which was less plausible than the bankruptcy court's interpretation, which attributed debtor's failure to repay plaintiff primarily to debtor's unanticipated loss of a higher-paying job. Therefore, the court affirmed the bankruptcy court's determination that debtor's debt was not excepted from discharge under section 523(a)(6). View "Van Daele Bros., Inc. v. Thoms" on Justia Law