Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

Under the terms of a spendthrift trust established by his parents, Defendant was entitled to receive over one million dollars, all to be paid out of trust principal. Before the trust’s first payment, Defendant filed for bankruptcy. The bankruptcy trustee sought a declaratory judgment on the extent of the bankruptcy trustee’s interest in the trust. The bankruptcy court concluded that the bankruptcy trustee, standing as a hypothetical lien creditor, could reach twenty-five percent of Defendant’s interest in the trust. The bankruptcy appellate panel affirmed. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit asked the Supreme Court to clarify the relevant provisions of the California Probate Code. The Supreme Court held (1) where a spendthrift trust pays the beneficiary entirely out of principal, the California Probate Code does not limit a bankruptcy estate’s access to the trust to twenty-five percent of the beneficiary’s interest; and (2) with limited exceptions, a general creditor may reach a sum up to the full amount of any distributions that are currently due and payable to the beneficiary even though they are still in the trustee’s hands and separately may reach a sum up to twenty-five percent of any payments that are anticipated to be made to the beneficiary. View "Carmack v. Reynolds" on Justia Law

Jevic filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy after its purchase in a leveraged buyout. Former Jevic drivers were awarded a judgment for violations of state and federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Acts, part of which was a priority wage claim under 11 U.S.C. 507(a)(4), entitling them to payment ahead of general unsecured claims. In another suit, a court-authorized committee representing unsecured creditors sued Sun Capital and CIT for fraudulent conveyance in the buyout; the parties negotiated a structured dismissal of Jevic’s bankruptcy, under which the drivers would receive nothing on their WARN claims, but lower-priority general unsecured creditors would be paid. The Bankruptcy Court reasoned that the proposed payouts would occur under a structured dismissal rather than an approved plan, so failure to follow ordinary priority rules did not bar approval. The district court and Third Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed. The drivers have standing, having “suffered an injury in fact,” or “likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” A settlement that respects ordinary priorities remains a reasonable possibility and the fraudulent-conveyance claim could have litigation value. Bankruptcy courts may not approve structured dismissals that provide for distributions that do not follow ordinary priority rules without the consent of affected creditors. Section 349(b), which permits a bankruptcy judge, “for cause, [to] orde[r] otherwise,” gives courts flexibility to protect reliance interests, not to make general end-of-case distributions that would be impermissible in a Chapter 11 plan or Chapter 7 liquidation. Here, the priority-violating distribution is attached to a final disposition and does not preserve the debtor as a going concern, nor make the disfavored creditors better off, promote the possibility of a confirmable plan, help to restore the status quo ante, or protect reliance interests. There is no “rare case” exception, permitting courts to disregard priority in structured dismissals for “sufficient reasons.” View "Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp. " on Justia Law

In 2014, Brown filed a voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, disclosing her ownership of a residence in Ypsilanti, Michigan, valued at $170,000 and subject to $219,000 in secured mortgage claims held by two separate creditors. Brown’s initial petition stated her intent to surrender her residence to the estate and did not claim any exemptions for the value of her redemption rights under Michigan law. The Trustee sought the court’s permission to sell the house for $160,000 and to distribute the proceeds among Brown’s creditors and professionals involved in selling the home. Brown objected and sought to amend her initial disclosures to claim exemptions for the value of her redemption rights (about $23,000) under Mich. Comp. Laws 600.3240, citing 11 U.S.C. 522(d). The bankruptcy court granted the Trustee permission to sell the property and denied Brown’s requested exemptions. The district court and Sixth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that Brown lacked any equity in the property after it sold for substantially less than the value of the secured claims. View "Brown v. Ellmann" on Justia Law

Netzer, a debtor in bankruptcy, asked the court to discharge a $9,200 debt to Wisconsin’s Office of Lawyer Regulation, imposed as costs in a disciplinary proceeding. The bankruptcy court concluded that the debt is a “fine, penalty, or forfeiture” under 11 U.S.C. 2 and not dischargeable. Netzer had 14 days to appeal, but 41 days later he asked the district judge to excuse his tardiness, contending that until a few days earlier he had not known of the bankruptcy court’s decision. The district court dismissed the appeal as untimely, reasoning that the 14-day period is jurisdictional and that there cannot be equitable exceptions to jurisdictional rules. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, stating that whether or not a given rule is “jurisdictional” it is still a rule and must be enforced. Courts lack an “equitable” power to contradict the bankruptcy statutes and rules. Litigants need only check the court’s electronic docket once a month in order to protect their interests. View "Netzer v. Office of Lawyer Regulation" on Justia Law

After William Douglas Carroll and Carolyn K. Carroll filed for bankruptcy in 2008, RedPen Properties, whose membership consisted solely of the Carrolls, filed for bankruptcy in the same year. The trustee in both these bankruptcy cases sought relief against the Carrolls and their daughters based on their conduct in the bankruptcy case. The bankruptcy court granted the trustee's motion in part and detailed a series of notable actions taken by the Carrolls in bad faith, including seeking to frustrate the sale of property, filings related to movables adversary brought by the Carroll daughters, orders of contempt, attempts to frustrate the sale of the Carrolls' residence and movables, and two attempts to remove the trustee that were wholly unsupported by evidence. The court concluded that the record fully supported the bankruptcy court's determination of bad faith, and the Carrolls have not established that any of the bankruptcy court's findings were clearly erroneous. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment as well as the attorney fee award. View "Carroll v. RedPen Properties" on Justia Law

After debtor filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2012, the bankruptcy court appointed a trustee to debtor's estate. In 2014, the trustee initiated this adversary proceeding, seeking to void the garnishments collected by Tower Credit within ninety days prior to debtor's filing for bankruptcy as preferential transfers pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 547(b). The bankruptcy court ultimately granted summary judgment to the trustee and the district court affirmed. The court explained that the combination of Supreme Court precedent and the overwhelming weight of persuasive authority applying section 547(e)(3) make clear that a debtor's wages cannot be transferred until they are earned. Therefore, the court held that a creditor's collection of garnished wages earned during the preference period was an avoidable transfer made during the preference period even if the garnishment was served prior to that period. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Tower Credit v. Schott" on Justia Law

Appellants Raul Galaz and Segundo Suenos, LLC challenged the district court's award of actual and exemplary damages to debtor. Raul partly founded Artist Rights Foundation (ARF). When debtor divorced Raul, she obtained a 25% economic interest in the company. Raul then transferred ARF's royalty rights to Segundo Suenos without notifying anyone. After debtor filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, she brought this adversary proceeding against appellants, alleging the fraudulent transfer of assets. The court affirmed the district court's holding that the purported transfer of the music rights from ARF to Segundo by Raul was fraudulent under the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act (TUFTA), Tex. Bus. & Com. Code 24.001 et seq. The district court concluded that TUFTA allowed a court to set aside a fraudulent transfer under 24.008(a)(1), and adopted the bankruptcy court's finding that Raul acted with actual intent to defraud debtor. Therefore, the district court did not err in awarding debtor exemplary damages against both Raul and Segundo. View "Galaz v. Galaz" on Justia Law

Stubbs filed a pro se Chapter 7 petition before she filed her 2014 tax returns. The Trustee completed the creditors’ meeting in February 2015, instructing Stubbs to send him a copy of her tax returns when filed and to not spend any refund. Stubbs received her discharge in April 2015. The Trustee did not receive the tax returns nor hear from Stubbs by September; he obtained an order for a Rule 2004 examination, requiring Stubbs to bring copies of her returns. Stubbs did not appear. The Trustee filed an adversary proceeding to revoke Stubbs’ discharge. Despite proper service, Stubbs failed to respond. The Trustee moved for default judgment. Stubbs did not appear. The court entered a sua sponte order to show cause why she should not be found in contempt. Stubbs did not respond nor appear at a subsequent hearing. The court sua sponte vacated the order scheduling the Rule 2004 examination; denied the default motion, and dismissed the adversary proceeding. The order criticized the Trustee for not seeking to hold Stubbs in contempt for failure to cooperate (11 U.S.C. 521) or otherwise preventing her discharge, indicating a preference to have the case dismissed. The Sixth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel vacated. A 2004 examination is a reasonable and usual method to compel a Chapter 7 debtor to provide information that a trustee or creditor cannot obtain voluntarily. View "In re Stubbs" on Justia Law

The bankruptcy trustee sought to recover for the bankruptcy estate a $190,595.50 loan payment debtor Tenderloin made to BOTW within ninety days of the filing of Tenderloin's chapter 7 bankruptcy. The "greater amount test" in 11 U.S.C. 547(b)(5) requires that the trustee demonstrate that by virtue of that payment BOTW received more than it otherwise would have in a hypothetical chapter 7 liquidation where the challenged transfer had not been made. The district court granted summary judgment for BOTW and found that the trustee could not satisfy section 547(b)(5) because BOTW had a right of setoff, and Tenderloin's account contained at least $190,595.50 on the petition date. The trustee asserted that in the hypothetical liquidation, the trustee would avoid a $526,402.05 deposit, leaving less than $190,595.50 in Tenderloin's account, even allowing for BOTW's right of setoff. The court concluded that courts may account for hypothetical preference actions within a hypothetical chapter 7 liquidation when such an inquiry was factually warranted, was supported by appropriate evidence, and the action would not contravene an independent statutory provision. In this case, the court was satisfied that the $526,402.05 deposit would constitute an avoidable preference in the hypothetical liquidation at issue here. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Schoenmann v. Bank of the West" on Justia Law

In 2003, a group of doctors filed a nationwide class action against Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association and its member entities, including Blue Cross NC (Love v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Ass'n). The doctors alleged that the Blue Cross companies used several underhanded business practices to deny, delay, and reduce payments for medical treatments based solely on considerations of cost. After Blue Cross NC filed suit against debtor and his clinic in 2006, debtor filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy for himself and on behalf of his clinic. Debtor then removed Blue Cross NC's suit to the bankruptcy court, asserting affirmative defenses and nine counterclaims that were essentially the same as in Love. In 2007, the Love parties entered into a settlement and enjoined the doctors from litigating any released claims. It was undisputed that debtor was a putative member of the Love class and that this injunction applied to his first seven counterclaims. Ten months after the Love court had issued its injunction, Blue Cross NC informed the bankruptcy court of the injunction. In 2009, after a nearly two-year hiatus in the North Carolina bankruptcy proceedings, debtor filed a motion for sanctions against Blue Cross NC. The bankruptcy court granted the motion, finding that Blue Cross NC purposefully avoided informing the court and debtor about the Love settlement and the injunction, causing the lost of counterclaims worth potentially millions, delayed litigation, and attorneys fees and costs. The bankruptcy court dismissed Blue Cross NC's claims with prejudice and ordered it to pay debtor a total of $1.29 million in attorneys' fees and costs. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court did not err in finding that Blue Cross NC acted in bad faith. However, the court explained that the sanctions were excessive and based on a faulty premise: that Blue Cross NC bore the responsibility for debtor's lack of diligence. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina v. Jemsek Clinic, P.A." on Justia Law