Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

Debtors challenged the district court’s judgment that adopted in part the bankruptcy court’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court concluded that the district court need not sustain debtors’ objections merely because they are unopposed; it may overrule the objections if they lack merit, as the district court indeed found. In this case, the district court overruled debtors’ objection to the bankruptcy court’s proposed finding that they must have realized there was no equity in the Thoroughbred Property. Under the circumstances, the court could not say that the district court clearly erred in concluding that debtors knew or should have known, by the closing date, that defendants would receive no equity in the Thoroughbred Property. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's adoption of the bankruptcy court's finding. The court also concluded that debtors' claim that the district court erred in overruling their objection to the bankruptcy court’s proposed finding that defendants did not misrepresent to debtors that defendants expected to make their rental payments solely from the equity received through the sale of the Thoroughbred Property was both meritless and waived. The court rejected debtors' remaining claims and affirmed the judgment. View "Monge v. Rojas" on Justia Law

Claimants appealed from the bankruptcy court's orders where the bankruptcy court found the division in contempt and imposed sanctions against the division for willful violation of the discharge injunction in attempting to collect on a support debt after the debtors obtained a discharge. The BAP concluded that this case does not fall within the domestic relations exception to federal jurisdiction and thus the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to determine the division’s claim; the BAP declined to consider the comity issue because it was raised for the first time on appeal; and the bankruptcy court erred in holding the division in contempt for willful violation of the discharge injunction because the discharge injunction does not apply to domestic support obligations under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(5) and 1328(a). Accordingly, the BAP reversed the judgment. View "Missouri v. Spencer" on Justia Law

Dells Hospitality borrowed $12,600,000 to purchase the Lake Delton Hilton Garden Inn. Dells’ owner and president, Sobsczak-Slomczewski, agreed to indemnify the lender against all losses.. Dells defaulted. The lender filed a foreclosure action. Sobsczak‐Slomczewski directed the hotel’s independent management company to transfer $677,000 to a corporate entity he owned. After a foreclosure sale, the lender amended the complaint to add claims for theft and conversion. The district court found that Sobsczak-Slomczewski had converted and embezzled the $677,000. Sobsczak‐Slomczewski then petitioned for bankruptcy. The lender filed an adversary proceeding seeking to have the $677,000 debt found non‐dischargeable. The bankruptcy court granted the lender summary judgment, citing 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(4) and (a)(6). The district court dismissed Sobsczak‐Slomczewski’s appeal, filed 15 days after the bankruptcy court order, holding that Rule 8002(a)’s 14‐day deadline was jurisdictional. Rejecting Sobsczak‐Slomczewski’s assertion that he did not receive notice until the day of the deadline, the court explained that there are no equitable exceptions to a mandatory jurisdictional rule. The Seventh Circuit affirmed after considering recent Supreme Court pronouncements The court joined other circuits in holding that the 14‐day deadline to file a notice of appeal is rooted in the jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. 158, which expressly includes a timeliness condition. Sobsczak‐Slomczewski did not timely seek additional time from the bankruptcy court. View "In re: Sobczak-Slomczewski" on Justia Law

Parts of the Puerto Rico Public Corporation Debt Enforcement and Recovery Act. mirrored Chapters 9 and 11 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code and enabled Puerto Rico’s public utility corporations to restructure their debt. The First Circuit affirmed an injunction, concluding that the Act is preempted by 11 U.S.C. 903(1). The Supreme Court affirmed, analyzing three federal municipal bankruptcy provisions. The “gateway” provision, section 109(c), requires a Chapter 9 debtor to be an insolvent municipality that is “specifically authorized” by a state “to be a debtor.” The pre-emption provision, 903(1), expressly bars states from enacting municipal bankruptcy laws. The definition of “State,” 101(52), “includes . . . Puerto Rico, except for the purpose of defining who may be a debtor under chapter 9.” The definition excludes Puerto Rico for the single purpose of defining who may be a Chapter 9 debtor, an unmistakable reference to the gateway provision. The definition of “State” does not exclude Puerto Rico from all of Chapter 9’s provisions. Puerto Rico is bound by the pre-emption provision, even though Congress removed its gateway provision authority to authorize its municipalities to seek Chapter 9 relief. An argument that the Recovery Act is not a “State law” that can be pre-empted is based on technical amendments to the terms “creditor” and “debtor” that are too “subtle” to support such a “[f]undamental chang[e] in the scope” of Chapter 9’s pre-emption provision. View "Puerto Rico v. Franklin Cal. Tax-Free Trust" on Justia Law

Jason’s, a wholesaler, provided unprocessed meat to Sparrer, a sausage manufacturer. Sparrer filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. During the 90-day preference period preceding the filing, Sparrer paid invoices from Jason’s totaling $586,658.10. The Unsecured Creditors Committee sought to recover those payments as avoidable preferences under 11 U.S.C. 547(b). Jason’s asserted that the transfers were made in the ordinary course of business and were nonavoidable under section 547(c)(2), or that it had provided meat to Sparrer in January-February of 2012 without receiving payment, offsetting its preference liability (section 547(c)(4)). The bankruptcy judge determined that before the preference period, Sparrer generally paid Jason’s invoices within 16-28 days. Of the 23 invoices that Sparrer paid during the preference period, 12 fell within that range. The judge concluded that those 12 payments were ordinary and nonavoidable. The remaining 11 payments, totaling $306,110.23, were not ordinary and must be returned to the bankruptcy estate. The district court affirmed. The Seventh Circuit reversed. Nothing indicated that it was unusual for Sparrer to pay Jason’s invoices within 14, 29, or 31 days of issuance. The only payments that can fairly be deemed out of the ordinary are those made 37-38 days after receipt of invoice. Jason’s preference liability is limited to those invoices and is offset by invoices Sparrer failed to pay. View "Jason's Foods, Inc. v. Unsecured Creditors Comm." on Justia Law

Creditor appealed the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's (BAP) decision determining that the exception to discharge found in 11 U.S.C. 727(a)(2) did not apply to debtor. The court held that section 727(a)(2), which prevents the bankruptcy court from granting a debtor a discharge if the debtor improperly transferred property “within one year before the date of the filing of the petition” in bankruptcy, is not subject to equitable tolling. In this case, because the transfer of the Lake Harbor property took place more than one year before debtor filed his Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition and section 727(a)(2) is not subject to equitable tolling, debtor was not precluded from discharge of his debts under section 727(a)(2). Accordingly, the court concluded that the bankruptcy court properly granted summary judgment to debtor on this issue. View "DeNoce v. Neff" on Justia Law

The adversary action comprises the claims, counterclaims, and affirmative defenses between two sides of a business scheme to buy, renovate, and operate a Days Inn. This appeal stems from the district court’s order affirming a bankruptcy court judgment rendered after trial in the adversary action. Appellant and his brother formed the plan to buy the hotel, and appellees are the investors that the brothers convinced to buy a fifty-percent stake in the scheme and the company that the three investors formed to hold their membership interest. The court concluded that appellant's res judicata argument fails where the release claim at issue was filed in the original action while summary judgment was still interlocutory. Thus, the claim was properly preserved through the severance order for later adjudication, and res judicata does not bar it. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in affirming the bankruptcy court judgment that appellant breached the settlement agreement. Further, the district court properly affirmed the bankruptcy court's dismissal of appellant's breach-of-guaranty claim against the investors, but not as to the company. The court affirmed in part and vacated in part, remanding for additional proceedings, including a determination of what percentage of the attorney’s fees were attributable to the breach-of-contract claim. View "Pirani v. Baharia" on Justia Law

In 2005, Water's Edge, LLC purchased lots 62-69 of "Re-Subdivision A" in Baldwin County, commonly referred to as Gulf Shores Yacht Club and Marina ("the property"). Fairfield Financial Services, Inc. loaned Water's Edge $12.8 million of the $13 million needed to purchase the property. In 2006, Fairfield notified Water's Edge that it would not renew Water's Edge's loan. The members of Water's Edge authorized the managers to seek new financing. In December 2006, Vision Bank agreed to loan Water's Edge $14.5 million. Vision Bank later merged with SE Property Holdings, LLC ("SEPH"). Certain members of Water's Edge signed agreements guaranteeing all of Water's Edge's debt to SEPH. In October 2008, SEPH notified Water's Edge that the loans were in default. In October 2010, SEPH sued Water's Edge and 28 individuals, including the guarantors, based on the promissory notes and guaranty agreements pertaining to the various loans issued over the years. The trial took place in late 2014. The trial court did not submit the case to the jury, but instead discharged the jury and entered an order granting SEPH's motion for a JML. The trial court found the guarantors and the other defendants jointly and severally liable on continuing unlimited guaranty agreements. The trial court found each of them individually liable for differing amounts based on continuing limited guaranty agreements they had signed. A month later, the trial court revised its earlier order, taking into account settlements and declarations of bankruptcy that certain guarantors had declared. The guarantors timely filed a motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment, which the trial court denied. The guarantors then appealed. The Alabama Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, finding that the trial court's judgment was not final because the trial court did not have jurisdiction to dismiss SEPH's claims against one of the guarantors, and the trial court did not certify its order as final pursuant to Rule 54(b). "An order entered in violation of the automatic bankruptcy stay is void as to the debtor, thus leaving the claims against [one of the guarantors] pending and rendering the judgment nonfinal. A nonfinal judgment will not support an appeal." View "Gaddy v. SE Property Holdings, LLC" on Justia Law

A federal district court certified two questions of law to the Iowa Supreme Court in a priority dispute between competing creditors of a bankrupt hog operation. Crooked Creek Corporation operated a farrow-to-finish hog facility where it bred gilts and sows and raised their litters for slaughter. After the company filed for bankruptcy, the hogs were sold, but the sale did not generate enough money to pay off competing liens asserted by two of Crooked Creek’s creditors: Oyens Feed & Supply, Inc. and Primebank. Oyens Feed held an agricultural supply dealer lien because it sold Crooked Creek feed “on credit . . . to fatten the hogs to market weight.” Primebank had a perfected article 9 security interest in the hogs to secure two promissory notes predating Oyens Feed’s section 570A.5(3) agricultural supply dealer lien in the hogs. At trial, Oyens Feed claimed it was entitled to all of the escrowed funds because its agricultural supply dealer lien had superpriority over Primebank’s earlier perfected security interest. The bankruptcy court concluded the plain meaning of section 570A.4 created a “discrete window of time,” beginning with the farmer’s purchase of feed and ending thirty-one days later, within which an agricultural supply dealer must file a financing statement to perfect its lien. The bankruptcy court concluded Oyens Feed had only perfected its lien as to amounts for feed delivered in the thirty-one days preceding the filing of each of its financing statements. In reaching its decision on the extent of Oyens Feed’s lien in the escrowed funds, the bankruptcy court reasoned the acquisition price of the hogs was zero because Crooked Creek raised hogs from birth rather than purchasing them. The court concluded “the ‘purchase price’ comprises the vast majority, if not all of, the ‘acquisition price’ for . . . purposes of Iowa Code § 570A.5(3).” The United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa asked the Iowa Supreme Court: (1) whether, pursuant to Iowa Code section 570A.4(2), was an agricultural supply dealer required to file a new financing statement every thirty-one (31) days in order to maintain perfection of its agricultural supply dealer’s lien as to feed supplied within the preceding thirty-one (31) day period?; and (2) whether pursuant to Iowa Code section 570A.5(3), was the “acquisition price” zero when the livestock are born in the farmer’s facility? The Supreme Court answered both certified questions in the affirmative. View "Oyens Feed & Supply, Inc. v. Primebank" on Justia Law

Morrison Informatics, Inc. (the “Company”) filed a petition for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy relief in September 2009. In May 2011, the Company and two shareholders, who also were officers of the corporation, commenced a civil action in the court of common pleas against Members 1st Federal Credit Union, Mark Zampelli, and Scott Douglass. In the ensuing complaint, the Company and the Shareholders asserted that, beginning sometime after January 2005 and continuing into 2009, the Company’s finance manager, Zampelli, had colluded with a Credit Union relationships officer, Douglass, to embezzle Company funds. The complaint advanced claims against the Credit Union, Zampelli, and Douglass variously sounding in fraud, conversion, civil conspiracy, and negligence. The question this case presented for the Supreme Court's review concerned whether a federal bankruptcy trustee could be substituted as a plaintiff in a civil action previously commenced by the debtor in bankruptcy in a Pennsylvania state court, although the statutory limitations period expired prior to the attempted substitution. "Although we recognize that the interests of a debtor and a trustee may diverge in some respects, we find it most important that trustees’ interests are derivative, and accordingly, they generally cannot assert any greater rights as against defendants than debtors could have in the first instance." The Supreme Court departed from the Superior Court’s focus on the continued “existence” of the Company after the initiation of insolvency proceedings, and the Court rejected a strict rule foreclosing a relation-back approach to substitution of a bankruptcy trustee for a debtor. Instead, the Court held that relation back in favor of a federal bankruptcy trustee was appropriate, at least where the trustee has acted in a reasonably diligent fashion to secure his or her substitution, and there is no demonstrable prejudice to defendants. View "Morrison Info. v. Members 1st FCU" on Justia Law