Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

Debtors filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and listed in their bankruptcy schedules a large volume of rice grain and farming equipment owned in connection with a joint venture. The Bank asserted a property interest and the trustee sought an injunction to prevent the Bank from exercising control over the rice and grain equipment. The court concluded that where a joint venture agreement exists, that document would be controlling as to the parties' intention. In this instance, Paragraph 13 of the joint venture agreement supported the bankruptcy court's determination that debtors had not intended to create a separate entity. Therefore, the rice grain was part of debtors' individual bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. 541 and the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to authorize the trustee to sell the rice grain. Accordingly, the court affirmed. View "Bank of England v. Rice" on Justia Law

The Trustee and Centris appealed the bankruptcy court's judgment to the extent that it determined certain funds were not property on the bankruptcy estate. Cross-claim Defendants appealed the same judgment to the extent it awarded the Trustee certain fees and expenses and surcharged those fees and expenses against the funds the bankruptcy court determined were not property of the bankruptcy estate. The bankruptcy appellate panel reversed and remanded, concluding that consideration of the issues was premature. The court believed the better course of action was to afford the bankruptcy court an opportunity to consider the arguments and explain its reasoning for accepting or rejecting them. View "Stalnaker v. Allison, et al." on Justia Law

Debtors filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy relief and proposed a plan to pay nondischargeable state and federal tax debts before other unsecured creditors. The bankruptcy court rejected the plan and the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) affirmed. Applying the four-part test for unfair discrimination in In re Leser, the court concluded that the plan unfairly discriminated against other unsecured creditors, leaving the unsecured creditors with little or nothing. The court rejected debtors' argument that their post-petition tax preparation fees should be treated as pre-confirmation legal fees or trustee administration fees where debtors did not file their pre-petition tax returns on time. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the bankruptcy court. View "Copeland, et al. v. Fink" on Justia Law

Debtor appealed the bankruptcy court's order, affirmed by the bankruptcy appellate panel, granting summary judgment in favor of the trustee regarding debtor's homestead exemption. The court affirmed, concluding that debtor never asserted an intention to move back into the property at issue nor had he refuted his statement at the 11 U.S.C. 341 meeting that he did not expect to live at the property at any point in the future. Further, denying the homestead exemption did not violate Article XXI, section 4 of the South Dakota Constitution where debtor removed himself from the property with no fixed or actual intent to return. View "Paul, Jr. v. Allred" on Justia Law

Empire Bank appealed from the bankruptcy court's order and judgment declaring that Arvest Bank's judicial lien was superior to the liens asserted by Empire Bank and directing judgment in favor of debtors on their preferential transfer claim against Empire Bank. The panel concluded that Arvest Bank and debtors failed to meet their burden of proof and the bankruptcy court erred in holding that the Empire Bank deed of trust was invalid for a lack of consideration; the "unsecured" language in the guaranty documents was true when they were executed and the status of the guaranties as unsecured changed when the deed of trust was signed but that change in the status of the guaranties was not a latent ambiguity in the Empire Bank deed of trust; the bankruptcy court erred in holding that a latent ambiguity existed where the Empire Bank deed of trust was subject to more than one interpretation; and, after addressing remaining arguments, the panel reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Arvest Bank v. Empire Bank" on Justia Law

Debtors filed a chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. Prior to the petition, Collection Associates filed a collection suit against one of the debtors in Nebraska state court and obtained a judgment. On appeal, debtors challenged an order of the bankruptcy court denying their complaint to avoid and recover transfers of wages to Collection Associates. The bankruptcy appellate panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's judgment where 11 U.S.C. 547(c)(8) applied as a defense to this preference action because the amount sought to be recovered was less than $600. View "Pierce, et al. v. Collection Assoc., Inc." on Justia Law

Debtor appealed the bankruptcy court's order sustaining the trustee's objection to debtor's claimed exemption. Debtor had filed a petition for relief under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code and had claimed exempt, as a public assistance benefit under MO.REV.STAT. 513.430.1(10)(a), the portion of her 2012 federal income tax refund that was attributable to a child tax credit allowed under 26 U.S.C. 24. The court affirmed the bankruptcy court's order sustaining the trustee's objection to debtor's claimed exemption, concluding that the refundable portion of the child tax credit was not a public assistance benefit within the meaning of the statute and could not be claimed exempt under the statute. View "Hardy v. Fink" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the bankruptcy court's denial of a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9024 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. The bankruptcy appellate panel concluded that plaintiff did not have standing to appeal the bankruptcy court's denial of the Rule 60 motion because he did not possess a financial stake in the bankruptcy court's order denying the motion. Therefore, the panel dismissed the appeal. View "Conway, et al. v. Heyl" on Justia Law

Debtor appealed from the bankruptcy court's order denying sanctions against the Bank. Although the evidence suggested that the Bank could have been aware of debtor's personal bankruptcy filing, there was no evidence that the Bank had knowledge of the Assignment and the purported transfer of the LLC's assets to him. The replevin action filed by the Bank did not name debtor, individually, and sought only to repossess equipment owned by the LLC in which the Bank had a properly perfected security interest. Consequently, there could be no knowing or deliberate conduct attributed to the Bank in its conduct to enforce its lien against the collateral it believed was owned by the LLC. Absent a showing that the Bank was aware of the Assignment, a willful stay violation could not be found. Because a finding that there has been a willful violation of the automatic stay was a prerequisite to an award of sanctions, the court affirmed the bankruptcy court's denial of sanctions. View "Carter, Jr., et al. v. First National Bank of Crosset" on Justia Law

Debtor appealed from the bankruptcy court's order granting creditor relief from the automatic stay to complete its foreclosure proceeding without a further hearing in debtor's case. The bankruptcy appellate panel concluded that the bankruptcy court correctly applied 11 U.S.C. 362(d)(4)(B) with respect to the property at issue to creditor as a creditor whose claim was secured by an interest in the real property. Likewise, the panel did not second guess the bankruptcy court's determination that debtor's bankruptcy filing was part of a scheme to hinder or delay creditors, and that such scheme was one involving multiple bankruptcy filings that affected the property. Accordingly, the panel held that the bankruptcy court's grant of relief from the automatic stay to creditor was proper. View "Behrens v. U.S. Bank N.A." on Justia Law