Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

Claimant, pro se, appealed from the order of the bankruptcy court denying his motion for reconsideration of a claim. The gist of claimant's appeal was that he wanted the bankruptcy court to enter an order simply requiring that his "restitution" claim be paid from some source. To the extent that claimant was requesting that the bankruptcy court deviate from the Bankruptcy Code and order that his claim be paid from some source not authorized by the Code, the bankruptcy court was without the authority to grant the relief he requested. Because the bankruptcy court could not grant claimant the relief he requested, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's order denying his motion for reconsideration. View "Lynd v. Ries" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of his breach of contract and retaliation claim against Boston Scientific. Plaintiff filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and then Boston Scientific terminated his employment shortly after his filing. The court concluded that, because the guaranteed payments at issue, if due at all, were property of the bankruptcy estate, plaintiff lacked standing to assert his breach of contract claim. Plaintiff's argument that had Boston Scientific not terminated him, the payments he received under the Employment Agreement would have been future earnings also failed. Because plaintiff never requested leave to amend his complaint to include a retaliation claim, the district court could not be faulted for failing to allow him to do so. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Longaker v. Boston Scientific Corp., et al" on Justia Law

Debtor appealed the final judgment of the bankruptcy court awarding plaintiff $350,490 and determining that amount to be nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(2)(A). The bankruptcy appellate panel (BAP) concluded that the record did not support a finding that the $300,000 loan under the modified oral agreement was made in reliance on a fraudulent representation made concurrently with the creation of the debt. Thus, that portion of plaintiff's claim could not be excepted from discharge and the BAP reversed the bankruptcy court's judgment to that extent. However, the record did support a finding that the Las Vegas deal was between plaintiff and debtor individually and the further finding that plaintiff established each of the requirements of section 523(a)(2)(A) with respect to the $50,490 he loaned debtor pursuant to that agreement. Thus, the BAP affirmed the bankruptcy court's determination of nondischargeability to that extent. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Heide v. Juve" on Justia Law

Debtor appealed from the order of the bankruptcy court converting his Chapter 7 bankruptcy case to a case under Chapter 11, pursuant to section 706(b) of Title 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The bankruptcy appellate panel (BAP) concluded that it was irrelevant that debtor was an individual with primarily non-consumer debts. The BAP also concluded that the bankruptcy court acted within its discretion when it assessed the evidence and determined conversion was warranted. Accordingly, the bankruptcy court acted within its discretion under section 706(b) and, therefore, the BAP affirmed the judgment. View "Schlehuber v. Fremont National Bank & Trust" on Justia Law

Georgina Stephens and Andrew Alexander appealed from the district court's decision affirming an order of the bankruptcy court giving possession of disputed property to the trustees of the individual bankruptcy estates of Ms. Stephens and Larry Alexander. Ms. Stephens and Mr. Alexander were previously married, Andrew is their son. This case stemmed from the separate bankruptcy petitions that Ms. Stephens and Mr. Alexander filed during their marriage and concerned the ownership and possession of certain property. Because Andrew had not challenged the district court's determination that he lacked standing to appeal the bankruptcy court's decision, the court deemed the issue waived; the court had jurisdiction to evict Ms. Stephens; the court rejected Ms. Stephens' res judicata and collateral estoppel arguments; and the court court rejected Ms. Stephens' remaining claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Alexander, et al v. Jensen-Carter, et al" on Justia Law

NABC appealed from the bankruptcy court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the Chapter 7 Trustee. The bankruptcy appellate panel (BAP) concluded that the bankruptcy court did not err in holding that NABC lost its possessory lien when it turned debtor's account funds over to the Trustee without first seeking adequate protection. Accordingly, the court affirmed the order. View "North American Banking Co. v. Leonard" on Justia Law

Debtor appealed the order of the bankruptcy court denying his motion for reconsideration of a previous order dismissing his chapter 7 case. The bankruptcy court, in issuing the previous order dismissing his case, denied debtor's request for a temporary waiver of the credit counseling requirement on his bankruptcy petition. The bankruptcy appellate panel (BAP) granted debtor's motion for rehearing and considered the merits of his appeal. Debtor had not identified anything in the record to suggest that the bankruptcy court, in denying his motion for reconsideration, failed to consider any relevant factors, considered or gave significant weight to any irrelevant or improper factors, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the proper factors. Consequently, the BAP found no abuse of discretion and affirmed the judgment. View "Bourgeois v. Bank of America" on Justia Law

Debtor appealed from the judgment of the bankruptcy court. At issue was whether the bonuses debtor received from her employer were considered property of debtor's estate. Because the bankruptcy appellate panel (BAP) held that the bonus payments were not property of debtor's bankruptcy estate because she had no cognizable interest in the payments on the date the petition was filed, the court must reverse the bankruptcy court's revocation of debtor's discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 727(d)(2); avoidance of the transfer under 11 U.S.C. 549 of bonus funds she received postpetition from her employer and entering judgment for recovery of those funds by the Chapter 7 trustee, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 550; and granting the trustee's motion for costs filed by the trustee pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7054(b). View "Seaver v. Klein-Swanson" on Justia Law

Debtor appealed from the bankruptcy court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the Chapter 7 Trustee on his objection to debtor's claimed homestead exemption. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's conclusion that debtor had abandoned the property at issue as his homestead by removing himself from the property with no fixed or actual intent to return, and was not, therefore, permitted to claim a homestead exemption. View "Paul, Jr. v. Allred" on Justia Law

Debtor, an inmate serving a life sentence with no possibility of parole, appealed from a bankruptcy court's order denying his motion for contempt for violation of his discharge injunction. The $45.00 automatically collected from debtor's inmate account was properly forwarded to the State in partial satisfaction of the post-petition costs of incarceration for which debtor remained liable under the Missouri Incarceration Reimbursement Act's, Mo. Ann. Stat. 217.825-217.841, judgment. Debtor's additional arguments lacked merit. Therefore, the bankruptcy appellate panel concluded that the bankruptcy court's decision was not based on clearly erroneous factual determinations or erroneous legal conclusions. The bankruptcy court acted within its discretion and the panel affirmed the judgment. View "Smith v. State of Missouri" on Justia Law