Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff appealed the district court's judgment in favor of Ocwen and dismissal of plaintiff's complaint alleging various causes of action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692. At issue is whether a debtor who has received a claim on a debt that has been discharged in a bankruptcy proceeding can sue the claimant in a district court under the FDCPA. The court concluded that the Bankruptcy Code does not broadly repeal the FDCPA for purposes of FDCPA claims based on conduct that would constitute alleged violations of the discharge injunction; none of plaintiff's individual FDCPA claims conflicts with the discharge injunction under the Bankruptcy Code; and, in regard to the claim of piecemeal litigation, the court concluded that the remote possibility of a need for clarification provides no basis for routing all FDCPA claims exclusively into the bankruptcy court. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded with instructions to reinstate plaintiff's FDCPA claims against Ocwen. View "Garfield v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2012, Plaintiff, a church located in Portland, filed a complaint seeking a state court judgment based on a bankruptcy court judgment that it obtained in 1985, under a former name, against Defendant. During the pendency of the state court action, Plaintiff also moved for a writ of execution on the original bankruptcy judgment. Defendant counterclaimed against Plaintiff and its pastor. The district court issued an order directing the issuance of a writ and then granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of Plaintiff on both its complaint and Defendant’s counterclaim. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the execution order and the judgment, holding (1) the district court correctly denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint seeking a judgment on the bankruptcy court judgment; but (2) the district court erred by ordering that an execution issue, granting judgment on the pleadings, and dismissing Defendant’s claims against Plaintiff’s pastor. View "Faith Temple v. DiPietro" on Justia Law

Brown began working as a United flight attendant in 1991. He suffered from depression and bipolar disorder and was disciplined for absenteeism and unprofessionalism. In 2000, he required psychiatric hospitalization. The Flight Attendants Board of Adjustment directed that he be permitted to return to work if his treating physician and a United doctor found him medically fit. Brown never complied. In 2005, the Board affirmed his termination. Meanwhile, United filed for bankruptcy. Brown filed a claim seeking back pay ($80,000). In 2004, Brown sued United in California state court, seeking more than $500,000. United sought transfer to the Illinois bankruptcy court, which did not lift the automatic stay. For 18 months, Brown did not pursue the case. In 2006, a California bankruptcy court granted transfer of Brown’s lawsuit, calling it an adversary proceeding, to Illinois. Brown had never filed a new or amended proof of claim and had not objected to United’s reorganization plan, which was confirmed in 2006, days after Brown’s lawsuit was transferred. The plan discharged claims “filed by Union-represented employees pertaining to rights collectively bargained for.” The clerk’s office mistakenly returned Brown’s file to California. None of the courts took any further action; neither did Brown. The bankruptcy closed in 2009. In 2013, Brown moved to reopen so that his California claims could be litigated. The bankruptcy court, district court, and Seventh Circuit rejected Brown’s arguments. Brown’s years of inaction amounted to abandonment of those claims. View "Brown v. UAL Corp." on Justia Law

Debtor owned a candle factory with three outstanding mortgages. Southwest had the largest security interest. After the trustee unsuccessfully attempted to sell the property and realize the equity for the estate, the trustee abandoned the property to Southwest. At issue on appeal is whether the estate or the secured creditor should pay the property’s maintenance expenses incurred while the trustee was trying to sell the property. The bankruptcy court granted a surcharge against the property for those expenses in the form of a priming lien. The court concluded that, to the extent that a trustee holds an asset longer than necessary to determine and realize its value, and the value turns out to be less than the creditor’s secured interest, the creditor can challenge the necessity of the costs incurred by the trustee. In this case, the bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding that Southwest received a direct and quantifiable benefit from the trustee’s stewardship of the property. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Southwest Securities, FSB v. Segner, Jr." on Justia Law

Statek appealed the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's order, on remand, denying reconsideration. In denying Statekʹs latest motions for reconsideration, the bankruptcy courtʹs decisions relied on a prior alternative holding - that Statekʹs argument was a ʺnew argumentʺ not proper for a motion for reconsideration - which this Court did not explicitly address in Coudert I.  In Coudert I, the court instructed the bankruptcy court ʺto apply Connecticutʹs choice of law rules in deciding Statekʹs motion to reconsider.ʺ The bankruptcy court did not follow that instruction, as the Connecticut choice‐of‐law rules did not bear on the bankruptcy courtʹs ultimate decision. Instead, the bankruptcy court ordered further briefing on whether it could adhere to its prior alternative holding that Statekʹs argument was a new argument not available on reconsideration. Because the bankruptcy court's decisions do not comply with the court's mandate in Coudert I, the court reversed and remanded with further instructions. View "Statek Corp. v. Development Specialists, Inc." on Justia Law

Debtor appealed the bankruptcy court's order denying her discharge for failure to list a number of assets and prepetition transfers in her bankruptcy schedules pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 727(a)(4)(A). The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's judgment, concluding that the bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding that debtor's omissions were made with reckless indifference to the truth and therefore were intentionally false and fraudulent. In this case, debtor, a bookkeeper for several businesses and nonprofits, failed to truthfully answer specific questions necessary to complete a picture of her assets and liabilities. View "Home Service Oil Co. v. Cecil" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a personal injury suit against defendants for alleged workplace injuries to Helen Allen. Defendants argued that the suit should be barred by judicial estoppel because plaintiffs failed to disclose the personal injury claim during their concurrent Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding.The district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that its precedent clearly establishes that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed plaintiffs’ claims based on judicial estoppel and provided a trustee with the opportunity to “pursue for the benefit of creditors a judgment or cause of action that the debtor fails to disclose in bankruptcy.” The court modified the district court’s judgment to clarify that the district court may reopen the present case and substitute a Chapter 7 trustee for plaintiffs if the trustee decides to pursue the claim within a reasonable period of time. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment as modified. View "Allen v. C & H Distributors, L.L.C.," on Justia Law

CEOC, the Chapter 11 debtor, owns and operates casinos. Caesars (CEC) is CEOC's principal owner. CEOC borrowed billions of dollars, issuing notes guaranteed by CEC. As CEOC’s financial position worsened, CEC tried to eliminate its guaranty obligations by selling assets of CEOC to other parties and terminating the guaranties. CEOC's creditors, who had received the guaranties, challenged CEC’s repudiation, seeking approximately $12 billion. CEOC, in its bankruptcy proceeding, asserted claims alleging that CEC caused CEOC to transfer valuable assets to CEC at less than fair value, leaving CEOC saddled with debt (fraudulent transfers) and that the guaranty suits will thwart CEOC’s multi‐billion‐dollar restructuring effort, which depends on a substantial contribution from CEC in settlement of CEOC’s claims, and will let the guaranty plaintiffs take precedence over other creditors. The bankruptcy judge, and a district judge refused CEOC's request to enjoin the guaranty suits until 60 days after a bankruptcy examiner completes his report. The bankruptcy judge’s exercise of jurisdiction over the other suits would have been constitutional, but he thought he lacked statutory authority to enter an injunction under 11 U.S.C. 105(a). The Seventh Circuit vacated, finding that the judges misinterpreted the statute and that issuance of a temporary injunction could facilitate a prompt wind‐up of the bankruptcy. View "Caesars Entm't Operating Co., Inc. v. BOKF, N.A." on Justia Law

Debtor appealed the bankruptcy court's decision finding that some, but not all, of her student loan obligations to NCT are nondischargeable. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court did not clearly err in its fact findings for the time period analyzed. In this case, the time period the bankruptcy court used was the most recent time period for which it had complete income and expense figures. Finally, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying debtor's motion to make additional findings and amended the judgment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Conway v. National Collegiate Trust" on Justia Law

This case stems from claims arising out of a dispute over the limited assets that remain from a tilapia farm investment in Nicaragua. Nica, the debtor in the underlying bankruptcy, held stock in Nicanor, the Nicaraguan fish farm. Plaintiff and a Norwegian firm, Biotec, owned the remaining shares of Nicanor. Defendant was the assignee for Nica's Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors (ABC). Defendant filed a voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition on Nica's behalf and plaintiff opposed the bankruptcy. Plaintiff's Adversary Proceeding against defendant was taken over by the Trustee and settled. Defendant removed plaintiff's state court action to Bankruptcy Court; the Trustee claimed the Adversary Proceeding as an asset of the estate and intervened as sole plaintiff; and the Trustee moved to settle it. In this appeal, the court rejected the equitable mootness argument because the court found that relief is still possible. However, the court concluded that absent explicit and plain authorization by the assignor, a Florida ABC assignee cannot initiate Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings. In this case, Nica deliberately selected an ABC as its preferred mode of liquidation and executed an agreement manifesting that intent, consistent with Florida law. Defendant had no authority to terminate the ABC by purporting to send Nica into bankruptcy. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Ullrich v. Welt" on Justia Law