Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

Articles Posted in U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
by
After the bankruptcy court held that a Minnesota property tax refund under Minn. Stat. Ann. 290A.04 is not exempt under Section 550.37 (Subd. 14) of the Minnesota statutes as “government assistance based on need,” following this panel’s decision in Manty v. Johnson, debtor appealed. The BAP rejected debtor's claim that Johnson was implicitly overruled by the Eighth Circuit's subsequent opinion in In re Hardy. The BAP concluded that Hardy in no way alters the ruling in Johnson. The BAP explained that the amendments to the federal Additional Child Tax Credit statute discussed in Hardy have no bearing on the Minnesota property tax refund statute at issue here and in Johnson. Accordingly, the BAP affirmed the judgment. View "Hanson v. Seaver" on Justia Law

by
Debtor appealed from the bankruptcy court's order denying his motion to reinstate his dismissed Chapter 13 bankruptcy case and an order denying his motion to reconsider that order. The panel concluded that the bankruptcy court did not clearly err in concluding that debtor had no meritorious defense to the UST’s motion to dismiss. Therefore, the panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's order denying debtor's motion to reinstate the dismissed case and denying his motion to reconsider. View "Paulson v. McDermott" on Justia Law

by
Debtor appealed the bankruptcy court's order denying his third motion to reconsider the order dismissing his chapter 7 case. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) concluded that, although debtor argues in his brief that the dismissal order was erroneous, he failed to file a timely notice of appeal from that order and the panel lacked jurisdiction to review it. The BAP also concluded that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion when it denied his third motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, the BAP affirmed the judgment. View "Lee v. Edwards" on Justia Law

by
Debtor filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and claimed a $15,000 exemption in a homestead he owned as a tenant in the entirety with his wife. The bankruptcy court granted debtor's motion to avoid CRP's judicial lien and the BAP affirmed. CRP appealed. The court vacated and remanded to the bankruptcy court for it to determine whether CRP has a judicial lien on the property that is either enforceable or unenforceable. View "CRP Holdings v. O'Sullivan" on Justia Law

by
Debtors argue that the bankruptcy court erred in not awarding them all the attorney fees they incurred in their adversary proceeding against Champion for its violation of the discharge injunction. Debtors also argue that the bankruptcy court erred in not awarding them punitive damages for Champion's violation of the discharge injunction. The BAP concluded that both arguments failed for the same reason. In this case, the record on appeal affords the panel no basis for evaluating their merits. Therefore, the BAP is unable to review the bankruptcy court's findings of fact or its conclusions of law, and cannot say, without the transcript, that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in reaching the decision it did. Accordingly, the BAP affirmed the judgment. View "Huonder v. Champion Milking Systems" on Justia Law

by
Debtor appeals the bankruptcy court's order converting his chapter 13 case to chapter 7. The BAP concluded that the bankruptcy court did not err by refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing on the United States Trustee's motion. The BAP also concluded that even if debtor had not waived his challenges, the bankruptcy court's findings are not clearly erroneous. In this case, the bankruptcy court's findings are amply supported by the facts set forth in the United States Trustee's verified motion. The BAP agreed with the bankruptcy court's findings that there was sufficient cause to convert the chapter 13 case to chapter 7. The bankruptcy court found that, inter alia, debtor had exhibited a serious and studied disregard for the orderly process of justice and a relentless willingness to lie; he had intentionally given inconsistent testimony and failed to provide responsive information; he had filed his bankruptcy petition in an attempt to avoid having to disclose financial information; and he failed to disclose assets on bankruptcy schedules. Accordingly, the BAP affirmed the judgment. View "Hansmeier v. McDermott" on Justia Law

by
The County appealed the bankruptcy court's order and judgment discharging the debt owed to it by Jacob Milan for costs incurred related to his incarceration. The bankruptcy code precludes discharge of a debt for a fine, penalty or forfeiture owing to a governmental unit unless it is pecuniary in nature. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court committed no error in its determination that the Incarceration Costs are subject to discharge under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(7). In this case, the clear intent for the Incarceration Costs is pecuniary in nature. View "County of Dakota v. Milan" on Justia Law

by
Barbara Wigley appeals the bankruptcy court's order denying confirmation of Robert Wigley's (debtor) second modified Chapter 11 plan. The court held that Barbara does not have standing because her interests are not central to the bankruptcy process and she is not a person aggrieved. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal. To the extent that Barbara has standing to bring this appeal, the court concluded that the bankruptcy court did not err in denying approval of a settlement in debtor's Chapter 11 plan, and the district court did not err in entering the stay relief order. View "Wigley v. Wigley" on Justia Law

by
Lariat appealed the bankruptcy court's order denying Lariat's request to dismiss the Chapter 11 case of debtor, or to convert the case to Chapter 7, denying confirmation of debtor’s second modified Chapter 11 plan, and establishing deadlines for debtor to file a modified plan and obtain confirmation of it. Lariat also appealed the bankruptcy court's order confirming debtor's fourth modified Chapter 11 plan. Lariat’s main argument is that the bankruptcy court erred in finding that debtor’s Chapter 11 case was filed in good faith. The court found no error with the bankruptcy court’s findings that debtor was in financial distress, and that he filed his Chapter 11 petition to maximize the value of his assets and to obtain the benefits of the Bankruptcy Code. The court rejected Lariat's contentions and affirmed the judgment. View "Lariat Companies, Inc. v. Wigley" on Justia Law

by
Kip Kaler, as trustee of the debtor's bankruptcy estate, brought suit against Louie Slominski to avoid a land lease that Slominski and the debtor had entered. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) held that the bankruptcy court incorrectly calculated the setoff but affirmed its judgment in all other respects. Despite Slominski's failure to raise his double-recovery argument before the bankruptcy court, the BAP considered it. The court, however, will independently review the bankruptcy court's decision and is not bound by the BAP's decision. The court has discretion to consider a new argument in exceptional circumstances but the court is not convinced to do so on this record. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant the trustee a new trial based on the newly discovered evidence where the newly discovered evidence - consisting primarily of unexecuted lease documents found on a computer not belonging to Slominski - did not undermine its conclusion that Slominski acted in good faith. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the BAP. View "Kaler v. Slominski" on Justia Law