Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

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

The bankruptcy court denied debtor discharge under the false oath provision of 11 U.S.C. 727(a)(4), after it found that debtor intentionally undervalued his interest in a real estate investment company. The court concluded that the undervaluation of the company constituted a false oath considering the magnitude of the undervaluation debtor's distinguished training and experience. The court further concluded that debtor's misstatement was material, and denial of discharge was appropriate in this case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Robinson v. Worley" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Jared Trent Cowen’s 2000 Peterbilt 379, a commercial truck, was in need of repair. To cover the cost, Cowen borrowed money from Defendant WD Equipment, which is owned and managed by Defendant Aaron Williams, in exchange for a lien on the truck and the promise of repayment. After the Peterbilt broke down again only a few weeks after the repairs, it was towed to a local repair company, which estimated that fixing the truck again would cost more than Cowen could afford. Because his Peterbilt was in the shop, Cowen could not make installment payments to WD Equipment. So, in early August, 2013, Cowen began taking steps to refinance the loan. Williams gave Cowen several, contradictory responses as to how much Cowen would need to pay to settle the debt, and he accelerated the payoff date several times, before ultimately setting a deadline. Around the same time, Cowen defaulted on another loan secured by another one of his trucks, a 2006 Kenworth T600. This loan was owed to Defendant Bert Dring, the father-in-law of Williams, who held a purchase-money security interest in the truck. Dring lured Cowen under false pretenses to his place of business to repossess the Kenworth. Cowen filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code on the day of the deadline for paying off the Peterbilt, and which was within the ten-day cure period for the Kenworth. He notified Defendants of the filing and requested the immediate return of both trucks. But Defendants refused. Cowen moved the bankruptcy court for orders to show cause why Defendants should not be held in contempt for willful violations of the automatic stay. The bankruptcy court granted the motions and ordered Defendants to “immediately turn over” the trucks to Cowen. When Defendants did not comply with the bankruptcy court’s turnover order, Cowen filed an adversary proceeding for violations of the automatic stay. A few months later, the bankruptcy court dismissed the underlying bankruptcy case because, without the trucks, Cowen had no regular income, which rendered him ineligible for Chapter 13 relief. However, the bankruptcy court expressly retained jurisdiction over the adversary proceeding. During the adversary proceeding, Defendants again asserted that Cowen’s rights in the trucks had been properly terminated by Defendants before the bankruptcy petition was filed, and so they could not have violated the automatic stay. The court disagreed, and Defendants timely appealed this decision to the district court, which reversed on the calculation of damages but otherwise affirmed the bankruptcy court’s order. Defendants then appealed to the Tenth Circuit, arguing, among other things, that the bankruptcy court exceeded its jurisdiction, that it lacked constitutional authority to enter a final judgment in this adversary proceeding, and that the bankruptcy court misinterpreted section 362 (the automatic stay provision). The Tenth Circuit agreed, reversed and remanded. View "WD Equipment v. Cowen" on Justia Law

Leigh Murphy d/b/a Murphy Cattle Co. appealed the bankruptcy court's orders holding that Sweetwater's lien in certain cattle was superior to Murphy's rights as an unpaid seller of the cattle. The panel concluded that the result in this case would be the same under either Colorado or Nebraska law and thus relied on cases from both states interpreting the relevant provisions of the UCC; Murphy signed a document transferring ownership of the cattle to Debtor Leonard, such that others could reasonably rely on Leonard's claim of ownership; Moffat County State Bank v. Producers Livestock Marketing Assoc. does not stand for the proposition that Article 2 is inapplicable here as to the passage of title, and the bankruptcy court did not err in turning to Article 2 of the UCC; pursuant to section 2-401, title passed to Leonard at the moment the cattle were shipped; Murphy's right to have title re-vest in him when the checks were dishonored was limited to his reclamation rights; under section 2-403, when Leonard received title from Murphy at the time of shipping, he received all the title Murphy had, as well as the power to transfer good title to a good faith purchaser for value (Sweetwater in this case); the panel denied Sweetwater's request to strike Murphy's electronic record filing; and the panel denied Sweetwater's oral request for sanctions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Sweetwater Cattle Co. v. Murphy" on Justia Law

Bratt filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, proposing to pay overdue taxes to Nashville, which held a $5,136 over-secured lien on Bratt’s real property. Under 11 U.S.C. 511(a), the interest rate for tax claims should “enable a creditor to receive the present value of the allowed amount of a tax claim” and be “determined under applicable nonbankruptcy law.” The Code does not allow assessment of post-petition penalties. Tennessee Code 67-5-2010 set an interest rate of 12% per year for overdue taxes, with a 6% per year penalty. A Tennessee bankruptcy court held that only the post-petition interest and not the penalty portion could be collected for over-secured claims in bankruptcy proceedings. In response, the Tennessee legislature added subsection (d): For purposes of any claim in a bankruptcy proceeding pertaining to delinquent property taxes, the assessment of penalties pursuant to this section constitutes the assessment of interest. Bratt argued that the amendment should not apply. Tennessee admitted that the 18% rate exceeded what was required to maintain the tax claim's present value. The bankruptcy court held that subsection (d) violated the Supremacy Clause. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed that 12% was the appropriate interest rate, reasoning that subsection (d) is not a “nonbankruptcy law” and is not applicable for determining the interest rate under section 511(a). The Sixth Circuit affirmed, adopting the BAP’s reasoning. View "Tennessee v. Corrin" on Justia Law

Charles Breland was a developer of real property, with properties in Alabama and Florida. In 2002, Breland hired David Hudgens to provide legal services for him and his companies. According to Hudgens, Breland informed him early during their professional relationship that he "was suffering significant cash flow problems." As a result, Hudgens says, the various law firms with which Hudgens worked while providing Breland and his companies with legal services delayed billing "a significant portion of the attorneys' fees and costs" for those services. Breland disputed that, claiming that he and/or his companies paid Hudgens more than $2.7 million for Hudgens's legal services between 2004 and 2010. In 2009, Breland filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. Breland filed the required schedules, required disclosure statement, and a proposed plan of reorganization that identified Hudgens & Associates, LLC ("H&A") as an unsecured creditor holding a $1 million claim and identified ETC as an unsecured creditor holding a $390,000 claim. Hudgens filed a proof of claim in the Breland bankruptcy on behalf of H&A for "legal fees" in the amount of $2,334,987.08 and filed proofs of claim on behalf of ETC for "guaranty of note" in the amounts of $879,929.55. Breland did not make payments according to the bankruptcy reorganization plan. Breland conveyed property to Gulf Beach Investment Company of Perdido, LLC which Hudgens alleged was in violation of the reorganization plan. Hudgens filed suit against Breland and Gulf Beach seeking enforcement of the plan, monies owed under the plan, and to void transfer of the property to Gulf Beach. The trial court entered a judgment on the parties' motions for a partial summary judgment, noting that it was not addressing the plaintiffs' "mortgage claim" because it had denied that claim in a September 2015 order. After setting forth extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law, the trial court awarded the plaintiffs $2,189,342.96 (consisting of $1.5 million in principal, plus interest); "denied and dismissed" the defendants' fraud, breach-of-contract, and slander-of-title claims; and certified the judgment as final pursuant to Rule 54(b). The trial court denied the defendants' postjudgment motion, and the defendants appealed. That case was assigned case no. 1150876, and the Alabama Supreme Court consolidated case nos. 1150302 and 1150876 for the purpose of writing one opinion. After review, the Court dismissed both appeals, finding the trial court exceeded its discretion in certifying as final the underlying appeals. View "Equity Trust Co. v. Breland" on Justia Law

Debtor challenges the district court's affirmance of the dismissal of its small business Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The court explained that the bankruptcy court's feasibility concerns would have existed even had debtor succeeded on its impairment-of-collateral argument. Even giving debtor the benefit of the impairment-of-collateral issue, the court found a sufficient basis in the record to defer to the bankruptcy court's "broad discretion" in determining whether a Chapter 11 case should be dismissed. In this case, the bankruptcy court noted primarily the issue of feasibility, that debtor's case had been pending for three years, and its failure to present a confirmable plan imposed substantial and continuing losses on its creditors. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Diwan, LLC v. Maha-Vishnu Corp." on Justia Law