Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

Debtors challenged the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's (BAP) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court's decision that the claim of Kenneth Barton was not subordinated pursuant to the provisions of 11 U.S.C. 510(b), and converted debtors’ Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings to Chapter 7 proceedings. The court disagreed with BAP and Khan I. See Liquidating Tr. Comm. of the Del Biaggio Liquidating Tr. v. Freeman (In re Del Biaggio), holding that section 510(b) does apply when debtors are individuals. Nevertheless, the court concluded that the bankruptcy court did not err when it refused to subordinate Barton’s claims pursuant to section 510(b). In this case, Barton sought and obtained damages. Even though his damage award for conversion was based on the value of the securities at the time of conversion, his action did not arise out of the purchase of the securities and the risks that the purchase might entail. Rather, his actions arose out of debtors' conversion of the securities many years later. The court rejected debtors arguments that the bankruptcy court clearly erred when it found bad faith, and abused its discretion when it converted their Chapter 13 proceedings to Chapter 7 proceedings. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Khan v. Barton" on Justia Law

Debtor filed a voluntary Chapter 13 petition that included a mortgage claim held by PNC and secured by a deed of trust on debtor's primary residence. The anti-modification clause in 11 U.S.C. 1322(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code protects a mortgagee from having its claim in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding modified, if the mortgage is secured “only by a security interest in real property that is the debtor’s principal residence.” The court held that reference in the Deed of Trust to escrow funds, insurance proceeds, or miscellaneous proceeds constitute incidental property, rather than additional collateral, which entitles debtor to anti-modification protection under section 1322(b)(2). In this case, the Deed of Trust on debtor's residence is secured only by real property that is also his principal residence. Escrow funds, insurance proceeds, and miscellaneous proceeds do not constitute additional collateral. The court affirmed the judgment. View "Birmingham v. PNC Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Qi obtained a $2,500,000 state court judgment against the Zengas and filed involuntary chapter 7 bankruptcy petitions against them. They moved to dismiss, asserting that because they had 12 or more creditors, the involuntary petitions required at least three petitioning creditors (11 U.S.C. 303(b)(1)), and that the cases were not in the best interest of creditors. Qi argued that the Zengas were estopped from presenting evidence that they had more than 11 creditors due to their responses to post-judgment sworn interrogatories in the state court proceedings. The bankruptcy court denied the motions to dismiss and entered orders for relief against the Zengas. The Sixth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel vacated, holding that the threshold number of petitioning creditors is not jurisdictional. The Supreme Court’s 2014 holding in Law v. Siegel cannot be extended to prevent use of equitable doctrines when the statutory provision is not jurisdictional. Given the bankruptcy court’s failure to find actual and substantial detriment to Qi and Qi’s inability to point to any detriment other than loss of time, the court held that the bankruptcy court erred in applying equitable estoppel to bar the Zengas from introducing evidence of the existence of more than 11 creditors. View "In re: Zenga" on Justia Law

The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment for the Department of Labor and declared that debtor's debt is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(4). Debtor appeals. The Department had obtained a pre-bankruptcy judgment against debtor in district court. The district court found that, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., that debtor breached his fiduciary duty when the company of which he was CEO failed to remit funds withheld from its employees' paychecks for their health insurance plan. The BAP concluded that a trust res was created in this case because the trust was created when the employer withholds wages for payments to a plan providing benefits to employees; debtor had fiduciary responsibilities with respect to funds that had been withheld from wages for payment to HealthPartners; and debtor committed defalcation when he knowingly failed to remit employee contributions and instead knowingly used those funds to pay for other corporate expenses. Accordingly, the BAP affirmed the judgment. View "U.S. Department of Labor v. Harris" on Justia Law

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

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

After debtors filed for bankruptcy relief, the Bankruptcy Administrator, Marjorie Lynch, moved to dismiss the case as an abuse because debtors used the National and Local Standard amounts for certain categories of expenses rather than the actual amount of their expenses, which were less than the standardized amounts. The bankruptcy court denied the motion to dismiss. The court granted the appeal as to the issue of whether 11 U.S.C. 707(b)(2) permits a debtor to take the full National and Local Standard amounts for expenses even though the debtor incurs actual expenses that are less than the standard amounts. The court concluded that debtors are entitled to the full National and Local Standard amount for a category of expenses if they incur an expense in that category. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the bankruptcy court. View "Lynch v. Jackson" on Justia Law

Debtor’s bankruptcy schedules indicated she had $1,500 in a checking account and no cash on hand. The Kentucky Medicare Fraud Unit subsequently searched her home and seized $270,000 in cash. Debtor was indicted for fraudulently claiming Social Security benefits, bankruptcy fraud, and money laundering. Debtor’s mother, Newton, who allegedly lived with Debtor, deposited $51,000 in cash into their joint bank account, then transferred $50,000 to retain a law firm as Debtor’s criminal counsel. Debtor was convicted. The chapter 7 trustee initiated an adversary proceeding to pursue the attorney fee. The bankruptcy court held that the fee was not subject to turnover, acknowledging: "Trustee offered substantial evidence that the Debtor was the source of the $50,000,” which may have been estate property before its transfer, but that the trustee’s “claim to estate property is no greater than the debtor’s claim.” The court held that because the trustee never sought to avoid that transfer under 11 U.S.C. 549, it was not estate property. The Sixth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed. The Trustee did not meet her burden of establishing that the attorney fee is property of the estate; fraudulently transferred property only becomes estate property upon avoidance of the transfer. The trustee did not establish that the fee was property of the estate under the Rules of Professional Responsibility. View "In re: Bruner" on Justia Law

Plaintiff-Appellant Asarco, LLC appeals the entry of summary judgment against it in its contribution action against Noranda Mining, Inc., under Section 113(f) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"). The district court held that Asarco was judicially estopped from pursuing its claim because of representations it made to a bankruptcy court concerning its settlement agreement with the EPA for the site in question. After review, the Tenth Circuit reversed, finding that the district court abused its discretion in applying judicial estoppel: "The overall context of the CERCLA settlement approved by the bankruptcy court makes it apparent that Asarco's positions are not clearly inconsistent, that to allow Asarco to pursue its claim would not create the perception that a court was misled, and that Asarco would not necessarily gain an unfair advantage by being allowed to pursue its claim now." View "Asarco v. Noranda Mining" on Justia Law

Smith’s husband obtained a Capital One credit card that he used for family consumer debts. Smith subsequently filed for bankruptcy. Smith’s husband did not join Smith’s petition and was not listed as a co‐debtor. The bankruptcy court confirmed Smith’s Chapter 13 plan. During Smith’s repayment period, Capital One, through attorney Kohn, sued Smith’s husband and obtained a Wisconsin state court judgment for amounts owed on his credit card; it has not attempted to enforce the judgment. Smith initiated a successful bankruptcy court adversary proceeding, arguing that Smith’s husband’s credit card debt was covered by the co‐debtor stay due under Wisconsin marital law and alleging violations of the co‐debtor stay, 11 U.S.C. 1301(a); the Wisconsin Consumer Act; and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692(d)(e). The district court reversed, holding that “consumer debt of the debtor” does not include a debt for which the debtor is not personally liable but that may be satisfied from the debtor’s interest in marital property. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Smith’s suggested expansion of the co‐debtor stay is contrary to its plain meaning and purpose, which is to prevent undue pressure that creditors could otherwise exert by threatening action against third-parties who have co‐signed the debtor’s debts. View "Smith v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A." on Justia Law