Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

In 2010, Trentadue’s ex‐wife sought to modify placement and child support, related to one of their six children. A three-year legal dispute over custody, placement, health insurance, and child support followed, involving substantial motion practice, requests for contempt findings, engagement of experts, and evidentiary hearings. The Wisconsin state court overseeing the litigation determined that Trentadue’s conduct resulted in excessive trial time to resolve the case and awarded Trentadue’s ex‐wife $25,000 in attorney’s fees for “overtrial,” to be paid to attorney Gay. Trentadue never paid Gay. Instead, he filed a chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. Gay countered by filing a $25,000 claim for the unpaid overtrial award and classified it as a nondischargeable, domestic support obligation entitled to priority. Trentadue objected that the obligation was imposed as a punishment, not a domestic support obligation. The bankruptcy court overruled his objection. The district court and Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting the restorative nature of the award. which “furthers two objectives, providing compensation to the overtrial victim for fees unnecessarily incurred and deterring unnecessary use of judicial resources.” The court also noted that Trentadue’s finances are “not so bleak,” including monthly income of six to seven thousand dollars. View "Trentadue v. Gay" on Justia Law

The City of Vallejo petitioned for Chapter 9 bankruptcy in 2008. Two years after the bankruptcy court confirmed Vallejo's debt-adjustment plan, a federal jury found that two police officers employed by Vallejo used constitutionally excessive force when they arrested Jason Eugene Deocampo. The district court entered a judgment for money damages against the officers in their personal capacities, and awarded Deocampo his attorney’s fees. The court noted that, under California law, Vallejo is generally obligated to indemnify its employees for claims against them arising from their employment. The court held that where, as here, the plan confirmed by the bankruptcy court did not expressly encompass claims or judgments against the city’s employees, the indemnification statutes do not subject such claims or judgments to adjustment by operation of law nor by the fact of the public employment itself. The court affirmed the district court’s denial of the officers’ Rule 60 motion for relief from judgment, and agreed with the district court that neither the judgment nor attorney’s fee award was discharged by Vallejo’s bankruptcy proceedings. View "Deocampo v. Potts" on Justia Law

After the County Treasurer and Tax Collector conducted tax sales of the properties debtor owned, debtor filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy relief. Debtor filed an adversary complaint against the County Treasurer and the purchasers of the two properties, alleging that because the County sold the properties for a price that was too low, the tax sales were fraudulent transfers voidable under 11 U.S.C. 548(a). The bankruptcy court dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed. In BFP v. Resolution Trust Corp., the Supreme Court held that the price received at a mortgage foreclosure sale “conclusively satisfies” the Bankruptcy Code’s requirement that transfers of an insolvent debtor’s property be in exchange for a “reasonably equivalent value,” so long as the mortgagee complied with the relevant foreclosure laws of the state in question, which in that case was also California. Because California tax sales have the same procedural safeguards as the California mortgage foreclosure sale at issue in BFP, the court agreed with the BAP and held that the price received at a California tax sale conducted in accordance with state law conclusively establishes “reasonably equivalent value” for purposes of 11 U.S.C. 548(a). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "In re Tracht Gut, LLC" on Justia Law

Castellino hired Picerne, a general contractor, to construct an apartment complex on Castellino's property. After Castellino defaulted on its obligations and failed to pay Picerne and its subcontractors, Picerne filed a demand for arbitration and a mechanic’s lien against the apartment complex. The parties eventually entered into arbitration and, on the same day the superior court confirmed the arbitration award, Castellino filed a Chapter 11 petition for bankruptcy. On appeal, Picerne contends that the bankruptcy court erred in denying its motion for post-discharge attorneys’ fees. The court concluded that, under the circumstances of this case, Picerne could “fairly or reasonably contemplate” that it would have a claim for attorneys’ fees if it prevailed in the state litigation before Castellino filed its petition for bankruptcy. Therefore, the district court correctly determined that the claim was discharged when the bankruptcy court confirmed Castellino’s plan. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Picerne Constr. v. Castellino Villas" on Justia Law

This case involves several familial disputes stemming from an employment lawsuit, an alleged extramarital affair, the death of the family patriarch, and secret recordings. On appeal, debtor challenges the district court’s order affirming a bankruptcy court judgment that declared nondischargeable a Texas state court judgment against him. The court concluded that debtor's sanctionable state court conduct relates back to the conduct alleged in the original complaint; the district court did not err in granting partial summary judgment on the issue of sanction orders based on collateral estoppel; the court rejected debtor's contention that the bankruptcy court erred in granting partial summary judgment on Appellees’ claims under 8 U.S.C. 523(a)(2) for fraud, finding no clear error in the district court's ruling and the bankruptcy court's account of the evidence; the bankruptcy court did not err in finding the defamation judgment nondischargeable under section 523(a)(6) for willful and malicious conduct; the bankruptcy court did not err in applying collateral estoppel to the jury's damages findings for both fraud and defamation; and the court dismissed debtor's claims as meritless. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Scarbrough v. Purser" on Justia Law

Rosenberg is the “principal architect” NMI and NMI Holding, which are affiliated with limited partnerships (LPs) that operate medical imaging centers. To finance the purchase of medical imaging equipment, the LPs entered into leases with DVI entities. DVI Financial was the initial servicer of the leases and U.S. Bank acted as trustee. When DVI Financial entered bankruptcy in 2004, Lyon acquired the servicing contracts. During state court litigation over money owed under the leases, DVI filed involuntary bankruptcy petitions against Rosenberg, NMI, and NMI Holding. The bankruptcy court dismissed the petitions because the DVI entities were not Rosenberg’s creditors. Rosenberg then filed an adversary action under 11 U.S.C. 303(i), alleging bad faith filing. Rosenberg obtained awards of fees and costs, $1.1 million in compensatory damages, and $5 million in punitive damages. Rosenberg’s wife, the Rosenberg Trust, and other Rosenberg Affiliates then sought damages based on the involuntary bankruptcy petitions, alleging tortious interference with contracts and business relationships. NMI Real Estate Partnerships owned the medical imaging facilities subject to mortgages. Rosenberg Affiliates alleged that the involuntary bankruptcy filings were intended to cause those Partnerships to default on their underlying mortgages; all but one of the properties have been lost. The district court dismissed, finding the claim preempted by the Bankruptcy Code. The Third Circuit reversed, stating that section 303(i) does not preempt the state law claims of nondebtors predicated on the filing of an involuntary bankruptcy petition. View "Rosenberg v. DVI Receivables XVII LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's order affirming eight rulings of the bankruptcy court. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court did not err in holding an evidentiary show-cause hearing where plaintiff received notice of the civil contempt allegations against him and the bankruptcy court gave plaintiff the opportunity to testify, submit evidence, and rebut the allegations of civil contempt at his show-cause hearing; plaintiff's due process rights were not violated when the bankruptcy court conducted a show-cause hearing on his civil contempt without appointing plaintiff an attorney; the bankruptcy court did not err by imposing coercive and compensatory civil contempt sanctions; and the bankruptcy court had subject matter jurisdiction over the allegations of civil contempt against plaintiff and the authority to enter a final order, not merely a proposed judgment, finding plaintiff in civil contempt. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court in all respects except as to the amount of the fee award. The court remanded for the bankruptcy court to award a fee based on the work the Trustee performed pursuant to Appellee Mitchell’s motion for contempt, and to determine whether the Trustee may pursue its adversary claim at this late date. View "Gowdy v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

After Kimberly Adkins and Chaille Dubois filed separate Chapter 13 bankruptcy petitions in the Bankruptcy Court, Atlas filed proofs of claim in their bankruptcy cases based on debts that were barred by Maryland’s statute of limitations. At issue is whether Atlas violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq., by filing proofs of claim based on time-barred debts. The court held that Atlas’s conduct does not violate the FDCPA because filing a proof of claim in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy based on a debt that is time-barred does not violate the FDCPA when the statute of limitations does not extinguish the debt. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Dubois v. Atlas Acquisitions LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the bankruptcy court's approval of a settlement agreement regarding a parcel of land in Berkeley, California, but failed to seek a stay of the sale order. The district court dismissed the appeal as moot. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court had the discretion to apply 11 U.S.C. 363 to the settlement involving a sale of the estate’s potential claims, and did not clearly err in determining that First-Citizens was a good faith purchaser of those claims. Therefore, under section 363(m), the court concluded that the sale may not be modified or set aside on appeal unless it was stayed pending appeal. Because plaintiff failed to seek a stay, the appeal is moot. The court did not reach plaintiff's challenges to the propriety of the sale of claims under section 363, as such an analysis would require the court to impermissibly reach the underlying merits of the settlement. View "Adeli v. Barclay" on Justia Law

The Fergusons proposed to repay their farm debts under Bankruptcy Code Chapter 12, including a $300,000 loan from First Community Bank, secured by a mortgage plus a lien on farm equipment and crops, and a $176,000 loan from FS, secured by a junior lien on equipment and crops. The bankruptcy judge approved a sale of equipment and crops, which yielded $238,000. The Bank, as senior creditor, demanded those proceeds. FS argued that the Bank should be required to recoup through the mortgage, allowing FS to be repaid from the equipment sale; "marshaling" is not mentioned in the Code, but available under state law. The Fergusons wanted reorganization, to keep their farm. The judge awarded the Bank $238,000. The parties could not agree on a repayment plan. The judge converted the case to a Chapter 7 liquidation. The trustee sold the farm for $411,000, paying the Bank the balance of its claim. About $261,000 remains. FS wanted to be treated as a secured creditor and repeated its request for marshaling. The equipment sale generated federal and state tax bills, with priority among unsecured creditors, 11 U.S.C. 507(a)(8). FS’s status—as a secured creditor with marshaling, or a general unsecured creditor without it—determines whether the taxes will be paid during the bankruptcy. Tax debts are not dischargeable; the Fergusons opposed marshaling. The bankruptcy judge approved FS’s request, stating that he would have approved the original request had he known that the farm would be sold. The district court remanded, stating that marshaling is proper only if two funds exist simultaneously. One fund (equipment and crop proceeds) is gone, only the land sale fund still exists. The Seventh Circuit dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction; the remand was not a final order. View "Ferguson v. West Central FS, Inc." on Justia Law