Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

Debtors appealed from a bankruptcy court order requiring them to convey to the bank real property. At issue was whether the bankruptcy court erred in its interpretation of the phrase "abandon the properties to Centennial Bank," as used in its earlier order and in debtors' confirmed Chapter 11 plan, to require debtors to convey real property to the bank. The bankruptcy appellate panel held that the bankruptcy court acted within its discretion when it interpreted its order and the Chapter 11 plan to mean that debtors were required to convey the real property to the bank. View "Kelley, et al v. Centennial Bank" on Justia Law

Appellant petitioned for protection under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, listing a sales-commission agreement (SCA) as non-exempt personal property with an estimated value of $6 million. He did not claim that payments owed under the SCA were exempt property on Schedule C of the petition. On appeal, appellant argued that the bankruptcy court erred by disregarding his request to amend his schedule of exempt property and approving the settlement. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance and approving the settlement and therefore, affirmed the judgment. View "Hecker v. Seaver" on Justia Law

Debtor appealed the judgment of the bankruptcy court determining that the debt he owed to the Bank was excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(2)(B) and denying any recovery on debtor's counterclaim. Debtor raised several issues on appeal. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) affirmed the bankruptcy court's judgment, holding that the bankruptcy court applied the correct legal standing in determining whether the Bank reasonably relied on debtor's written statements; the BAP could not conclude that the bankruptcy court's findings of fact were clearly erroneous; and debtor not only consented to the bankruptcy court's entering a final judgment on the state law counterclaims, he lacked standing to pursue an appeal from the bankruptcy court's final judgment on the counterclaims. View "Bank of Nebraska v. Rose" on Justia Law

This was a preference action under 11 U.S.C. 547 by the Chapter 7 trustee to recover a payoff payment to Border State Bank from proceeds of debtor's liquidation sale. The bankruptcy court denied the Bank's motion for summary judgment, holding that the perfection of the Bank's lien was within the perfection period under section 547(b) and that the floating lien defense in section 547(c)(5) did not provide a defense to a security interest that was actually perfected during the preference period. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) held that the bankruptcy court did not err in holding that section 547(c)(5) did not apply and in thus ruling in favor of the trustee on the Bank's motion for summary judgment; the bankruptcy court did not err in holding that liquidation as part of the cessation of debtor's business was not ordinary course; and the bankruptcy court did not err in rejecting the Bank's new value defense. The court also held that payment to the bank of funds which were held in debtor's account at the Bank at the start of the liquidation period was not a preferential transfer or an improper setoff. However, the Bank should be required to pay for the services it hired to analyze its own best strategy and the court committed clear error in giving it credit for that expenditure. View "Velde v. Border State Bank" on Justia Law

Defendant was a former employee and sole stockholder of RSI Holdings. RSI Holdings was the sole stockholder of the debtor. This appeal involved a dispute over a life insurance policy where defendant's estate was listed as the beneficiary. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) affirmed the bankruptcy court's summary judgment determination that the bankruptcy estate was entitled to the cash value proceeds of the life insurance policy debtor had obtained for defendant during her employment. View "Kaler v. Bala" on Justia Law

Debtors appealed from the order of the bankruptcy court confirming their amended Chapter 13 plan. At issue was whether the bankruptcy court erred when it confirmed debtors' plan that did not provide for payment of unsecured non-priority tax claims and tax preparation fees ahead of other non-priority unsecured creditors. Because a plan proposed by debtors providing for special treatment of the tax claims would unfairly discriminate against other unsecured non-priority creditors, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel held that the bankruptcy court's confirmation of the plan was proper. View "Copeland, et al v. Fink" on Justia Law

In consolidated appeals, defendants appealed the bankruptcy court's judgments against them under 11 U.S.C. 547(b) for payments they received from debtors in the 90 days prior to the bankruptcy petition date. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision with regard to its determination that the payments defendants received from debtors were voidable under section 547(b), but the BAP reversed on the bankruptcy court's calculation of defendants new value credits. View "Stoebner v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co." on Justia Law

Debtors filed for bankruptcy and the Trust subsequently filed an Adversary Complaint against debtors, claiming that they owed nondischargeable debt to the Trust under 11 U.S.C. 523. The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment to the Trust and the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) reversed, holding that the Trust was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the Trust could not meet the statutory requirements of section 523. The court held that debtors did not obtain money, property, or services from the Trust, and the Trust did not rely on debtors' misrepresentations when it guaranteed certain obligations. Accordingly, the court affirmed the BAP's ruling, vacated the award of summary judgment to the Trust, and directed judgment to debtors. View "Samuel J. Temperato Trust v. Unterreiner, et al" on Justia Law

Debtor appealed from a bankruptcy court order sustaining the trustee's Objection to Debtor's Claim of Exemptions and granting trustee's Motion to Compel Turnover. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling that debtor's exemption for three unrelated children living in his house did not fall within the ambit of Missouri Revised Statute 513.440 and that an amount to be calculated and agreed upon by the parties based on the sustained objection was property of the estate and must be turned over to the trustee. View "Turpen v. Rouse" on Justia Law

Iowa Student Loan appealed the bankruptcy court's judgment determining that the educational loan debts that debtor owed were discharged. Having reviewed de novo the bankruptcy court's conclusion that excepting debtor's student loan debts from discharge would constitute an undue hardship and having reviewed for clear error the findings of fact on which the bankruptcy court based its conclusion, the bankruptcy appellate panel affirmed the judgment. View "Shaffer v. Iowa Student Loan Liquidity" on Justia Law