Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

A married couple, Carlos Del Amo and his wife, opened a joint checking account at TD Bank in Florida. The account’s signature card listed both their names and, in small print, stated that “joint accounts are owned as joint tenants with right of survivorship.” When Mr. Del Amo filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, he claimed the account as exempt property, arguing it was owned as a tenancy by the entirety—a form of ownership that protects the account from creditors of only one spouse under Florida law. Storey Mountain, a creditor, objected, contending that the account was not exempt because the signature card’s language created a joint tenancy with right of survivorship, not a tenancy by the entirety.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida found the statutory language unclear as to what constitutes “otherwise specified in writing” under Florida Statutes § 655.79(1). Relying on the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Beal Bank, SSB v. Almand and Associates, the bankruptcy court held that, absent an express disclaimer of tenancy by the entirety on the signature card, the account was presumed to be held as a tenancy by the entirety. The court overruled Storey Mountain’s objection. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida affirmed, agreeing that the 2008 amendment to § 655.79(1) did not abrogate Beal Bank’s requirement for an express disclaimer.On further appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the lower courts. The Eleventh Circuit held that, under Florida law, a joint bank account held by a married couple is presumed to be a tenancy by the entirety unless there is an explicit written disclaimer of that form of ownership. The court found that the language on the signature card was insufficient to constitute such a disclaimer, and thus the account was exempt property in the bankruptcy proceedings. View "Storey Mountain v. Del Amo" on Justia Law

A dispute arose after a rare vehicle, originally owned by a Wisconsin man, was stolen and shipped to Europe. Richard Mueller inherited the vehicle and sold part of his interest to Joseph Ford. Years later, TL90108 LLC (“TL”) purchased the vehicle overseas and, upon attempting to register it in the United States, was notified that Ford and Mueller were the owners of record. Ford and Mueller sued TL in Wisconsin state court for a declaratory judgment and replevin. The trial court dismissed the case on statute-of-repose grounds, but the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review. While the appeal was pending, Ford filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy but did not list TL as a creditor or provide it with formal notice of the bankruptcy proceedings or relevant deadlines.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida set a deadline under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4007(c) for creditors to file complaints objecting to the discharge of debts. TL did not file a complaint before this deadline, as it was unaware of the relevant facts supporting a fraud claim until later discovery in the Wisconsin litigation. After learning of Ford’s alleged fraud, TL moved to extend the deadline and file a complaint under 11 U.S.C. § 523(c), arguing for equitable tolling and asserting a due process violation due to inadequate notice. The bankruptcy court denied the motion, relying on the Eleventh Circuit’s precedent in In re Alton, which held that equitable tolling does not apply to Rule 4007(c) deadlines.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision. The court held that its prior decision in In re Alton remains binding and precludes equitable tolling of Rule 4007(c)’s deadline, even in light of subsequent Supreme Court decisions. The court also held that TL’s actual notice of the bankruptcy proceeding satisfied due process, and thus, the deadline could not be extended on that basis. View "TL90108 LLC v. Ford" on Justia Law

Stanley Watson, a former county commissioner, accused Sheneeka Bradsher and Zarinah Ali of stealing his wallet at a bar. Despite no evidence, he repeatedly demanded their arrest and threatened police officers who did not comply. Bradsher was arrested for disorderly conduct, but later released when Watson's wallet was found in his car. Bradsher and Ali sued Watson for slander, battery, and false imprisonment, winning a $150,500 judgment.Watson filed for bankruptcy, and Bradsher and Ali sought to except their judgment from discharge. The bankruptcy court found Watson genuinely believed the women stole his wallet, discharging the slander and battery debts but ruling the false imprisonment debts nondischargeable. The district court affirmed the nondischargeability of the false imprisonment debts but remanded for further clarification on the slander claim. On remand, the bankruptcy court found the slander debt dischargeable, attributing two-thirds of the damages to false imprisonment and one-third to slander.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding Watson willfully and maliciously caused the women’s confinement, making the false imprisonment debts nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). The court also upheld the bankruptcy court’s allocation of damages, finding it supported by the evidence. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the judgments in favor of Bradsher and Ali. View "Watson v. Bradsher" on Justia Law

BenShot, LLC, a family-owned business, sells a unique drinking glass design featuring a bullet "penetrating" the side. 2 Monkey Trading, LLC and Lucky Shot USA, LLC (the Debtors) sell similar glasses imported from China, falsely advertised as "Made in the United States." BenShot sued the Debtors in the Eastern District of Wisconsin for Lanham Act violations and Wisconsin common law. A jury found in favor of BenShot, awarding punitive damages and determining the Debtors acted maliciously or in intentional disregard of BenShot's rights.Following the jury verdict, the Debtors filed for bankruptcy under Subchapter V of Chapter 11. BenShot argued that the jury award was a non-dischargeable debt for willful and malicious injury under 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(6) and 1192(2). The Debtors moved to dismiss, claiming § 523(a)(6) only applied to individual debtors, not corporate debtors like themselves. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida agreed with the Debtors and dismissed BenShot's complaint, relying on similar interpretations by other bankruptcy courts.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that under § 1192, both individual and corporate debtors cannot discharge any debts of the kind listed in § 523(a). The court found the plain language of § 1192 unambiguous, applying to both individual and corporate debtors, and that "debt" as defined in the Bankruptcy Code does not distinguish between individual or corporate debtors. The court reversed the bankruptcy court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Benshot, LLC v. 2 Monkey Trading, LLC" on Justia Law

Rajesh Patel filed for bankruptcy in 2016, which triggered an automatic stay on all creditor actions against him. Despite this, Patel participated in an arbitration proceeding and lost. After a state court affirmed the arbitration award, Patel sought to stay the enforcement of the award in bankruptcy court, arguing that the arbitration violated the automatic stay. The bankruptcy court annulled the stay, finding that Patel had engaged in gamesmanship by participating in the arbitration without raising the stay and then attempting to use it to void the unfavorable outcome.The bankruptcy court's decision was appealed to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's annulment of the stay, rejecting Patel's argument that the annulment was contrary to the Supreme Court's decision in Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan v. Acevedo Feliciano. The district court found that Acevedo, which dealt with the jurisdiction of a district court after a case was removed to federal court, did not affect the bankruptcy court's statutory authority to annul the automatic stay for cause.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the lower courts' decisions. The Eleventh Circuit held that the bankruptcy court had the authority under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) to annul the automatic stay for cause. The court distinguished the case from Acevedo, noting that Acevedo addressed the removal jurisdiction of a district court and did not impact the bankruptcy court's power to annul a stay. The court also rejected Patel's procedural objections, finding that any error in the process was harmless as Patel had sufficient notice and opportunity to oppose the requested relief. View "Patel v. Patel" on Justia Law

Michael Chapman, an Alabama inmate, sued prison officials and staff for deliberate indifference to his medical needs, violating the Eighth Amendment. Chapman alleged that an untreated ear infection led to severe injuries, including mastoiditis, a ruptured eardrum, and a brain abscess. He also claimed that the prison's refusal to perform cataract surgery on his right eye constituted deliberate indifference. The district court granted summary judgment for all defendants except the prison’s medical contractor, which had filed for bankruptcy.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama found Chapman’s claim against nurse Charlie Waugh time-barred and ruled against Chapman on other claims, including his request for injunctive relief against Commissioner John Hamm, citing sovereign immunity. The court also concluded that Chapman’s claims against other defendants failed on the merits and dismissed his state-law claims without prejudice.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the case. The court reversed the district court’s determination that Chapman’s claim against Waugh was time-barred, finding that Chapman’s cause of action accrued within the limitations period. The court vacated the district court’s judgment for Waugh and remanded for reconsideration in light of the recent en banc decision in Wade, which clarified the standard for deliberate indifference claims. The court also vacated the judgment for Hamm on Chapman’s cataract-related claim for injunctive relief, as sovereign immunity does not bar such claims. Additionally, the court vacated the summary judgment for all other defendants due to procedural errors, including inadequate notice and time for Chapman to respond, and remanded for further consideration. View "Chapman v. Dunn" on Justia Law

After Process Technologies obtained a judgment in state court against debtor for violations of state securities laws, debtor filed for bankruptcy. Process Technologies then filed an adversary proceeding, arguing that 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(19)(A) barred debtor from discharging the debt. The court concluded that debtor cannot discharge his debt because the bankruptcy court made a finding of fact that debtor violated securities laws and, in the alternative, section 523(a)(19)(A) applies irrespective of whether debtor violated securities laws. The court also concluded that debtor is not entitled to leave to amend his complaint. Accordingly, the court affirmed the bankruptcy court's order that excepted the debt from discharge and denied leave to amend. View "Lunsford, Sr. v. Process Technologies Services" on Justia Law

Debtor made false oral statements to his lawyers, Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP, that he expected a large tax refund that he would use to pay his debt to the firm. Debtor filed for bankruptcy after Lamar obtained a judgment for the debt. Lamar then initiated an adversary proceeding to have the debt ruled nondischargeable. The bankruptcy court and the district court determined that the debt could not be discharged under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(2)(A) because it was incurred by fraud. The court reversed and remanded, concluding that debtor's debt to Lamar can be discharged in bankruptcy. In this case, because a statement about a single asset can be a "statement respecting the debtor's . . . financial condition," and because debtor's statements were not in writing, his debt can be discharged under section 523(a)(2)(B). View "Appling v. Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP" on Justia Law

Debtor filed a petition for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and claimed the assets in her health savings account (HSA) as property exempt from the bankruptcy estate. On appeal, the court certified the following questions to the Supreme Court of Georgia: 1. Does a debtor’s health savings account constitute a right to receive a “disability, illness, or unemployment benefit” for the purposes of O.C.G.A. 44–13–100(a)(2)(C)? 2. Does a debtor’s health savings account constitute a right to receive a “payment under a pension, annuity, or similar plan or contract” for the purposes of O.C.G.A. 44–13–100(a)(2)(E)? Because the Supreme Court of Georgia answered both questions in the negative, debtor's arguments on appeal are foreclosed. The court concluded that, under Georgia law, debtor was not entitled to claim the assets in her HSA as property exempt from the bankruptcy estate. The court affirmed the judgment. View "Mooney v. Webster" on Justia Law

Barbara Wortley, Trafford's president and shareholder, filed a Chapter 7 petition for bankruptcy on Trafford's behalf and the case was assigned to Bankruptcy Judge John Olson. Judge Olson appointed Michael Bakst as a trustee. While Bakst was litigating the Trafford adversary cases, his law firm, Ruden McClosky, hired Judge Olson's fiance, Steven Fender, to join its bankruptcy group. Judge Olson eventually ordered the Wortley parties to pay over $2.5 million to Trafford's bankruptcy estate. The Wortley parties then filed suit in state court alleging that Bakst hired Fender as part of a scheme to improperly influence Judge Olson and to secure favorable rulings. The state court action was removed to federal bankruptcy court, where it was dismissed. The court concluded that it does not have appellate jurisdiction to consider the merits of the Wortley parties' appeal. The court explained that the bankruptcy court had only "related to" jurisdiction over the claims asserted against Bakst and Fender by the Wortley parties, and as a result it did not have authority to enter a final order of dismissal. The bankruptcy court should have submitted a report with proposed conclusions of law recommending dismissal of the complaint to the district court. Because the case should have gone there first, the court transferred the unauthorized order to the district court for review as a report with proposed conclusions of law under 28 U.S.C. 157(c)(1). View "Wortley v. Bakst" on Justia Law