Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

Sauer Incorporated alleged that Carrie Lawson incurred a debt by knowingly receiving a fraudulent conveyance from her father that was designed to prevent Sauer from collecting a judgment against him. After Lawson filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy Sauer initiated this adversary proceeding objecting to the discharge of this debt under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(2)(A) as being for money “obtained by…actual fraud.” The bankruptcy court dismissed Sauer’s adversary proceeding, determining that because Sauer could not allege that Lawson had made a misrepresentation, Sauer could not establish that section 523(a)(2)(A) barred discharge of Lawson’s debt. The First Circuit vacated the bankruptcy court’s grant of Lawson’s motion to dismiss, holding that a debt that is not dischargeable in Chapter 13 bankruptcy as a debt for money or property “obtained by…actual fraud” extends beyond debts incurred through fraudulent misrepresentations to also include debts incurred as a result of knowingly accepting a fraudulent conveyance that the transferee knew was intended to hinder the transferor’s creditors. View "Sauer Inc. v. Lawson" on Justia Law

Debtors, limited liability companies, own pools of commercial and industrial real estate, subject to mortgages held by the Trust. The promissory notes for the loans provided that upon default, the interest rate on the remaining principal would be 5% in addition to the non-default rate of 5.04%. Debtors defaulted and later filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy relief. The Trust filed proof of claim for $1,516,739.80 in default interest. The assigned asset manager for the loans testified about expenses associated with default and said that the 5% rate was consistent with the rate for similar loans. According to the Debtors’ chief manager, the additional interest duplicated costs associated with default that Debtors were already paying, including attorneys’ fees, late fees, and costs of administration and enforcement. The bankruptcy court allowed the claim, finding that Debtors failed to rebut the Minnesota law presumption that the default-interest provision was a valid liquidated-damages provision. The district court and the Eighth Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the bankruptcy court misapplied Minnesota law because it did not require the Trust to prove actual damages; that actual damages for breach of a promissory note are always ascertainable; and that many of the costs the default rate purportedly covers are otherwise covered. View "Bowles Sub Parcel A, LLC v. CW Capital Asset Mgmt. LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs claimed they were lured into making investments from which their money was “appropriated” and sued Nathan and Vertical Group. The district court entered an order of default against Vertical, but did not award damages at that time. Nathan filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The district court closed the matter during the bankruptcy. Nathan proposed a Chapter 11 plan. The plaintiffs objected and brought an adversary proceeding, restating their allegations and asserting that their claims were non-dischargeable. The bankruptcy court agreed, rejected Nathan’s plan, awarded actual and punitive damages, and determined that Nathan’s bankruptcy estate acquired his interest in the Kathleen Trust, into which Nathan and his wife had transferred assets before his bankruptcy, but did not identify a specific value of Nathan’s interest. The court converted Nathan’s bankruptcy to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The trustee tried to reach Trust assets. The court concluded that Nathan’s powers as a co-trustee were property of his bankruptcy estate, but Nathan lacked authority to act as trustee without Kathleen’s consent and only Kathleen could revoke the trust. Plaintiffs reopened the original action to determine damages and to collect the Vertical judgment from Trust assets. The district court referred the matter to the bankruptcy court, which recommended awarding actual damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees in the amount awarded in the bankruptcy adversary proceeding. The district court adopted the findings and entered a default judgment against Vertical. The Eighth Circuit dismissed Nathan’s appeal for lack of standing and affirmed as to Kathleen. View "Cutcliff v. Reuter" on Justia Law

Michael and Rebecca Gordon filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy. In their petition, they sought to treat $2,051 in a savings account as an exempt asset under the Colorado exemption for “[p]roperty . . . held in or payable from any pension or retirement plan or deferred compensation plan.” The Trustee objected on the ground that the exemption did not apply to funds once paid out from a retirement plan. The bankruptcy court sustained the Trustee’s objection and denied the Gordons’ motion for reconsideration. The United States District Court for the District of Colorado affirmed, and finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit also affirmed. View "In re: Gordon" on Justia Law

The Kawaharas loaned the Allisons $400,000. The Allisons executed a note to the Kawaharas in that amount secured by a deed of trust on a Reno property. The note was delivered in 2009 but was not recorded until 2011. When the Allisons’ car dealership became delinquent in taxes, the State Department of Taxation recorded certificates of tax lien against the Allisons. The lien was created and recorded in 2010. The Allisons filed for bankruptcy in 2011. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada approved the sale of the Reno property. The bankruptcy court certified two questions to the Nevada Supreme Court concerning the priority of the competing liens on the Reno property. The Supreme Court concluded (1) a recorded tax lien cannot be recognized as a mortgage lien, and therefore, the Department cannot claim to have recorded a mortgage lien when it filed a tax lien certificate; (2) the deed of trust had priority over a tax lien levied under Nev. Rev. Stat. 360.473; and (3) the Department’s tax lien is considered a judgment lien under section 360.473(2), and Nevada recording statutes do not protect judgment creditors against prior unrecorded conveyances. View "State, Dep't of Taxation v. Kawahara" on Justia Law

William Plise, a judgment debtor, did not attend his scheduled debtor’s examinations in the district court. Eliot Alper, the judgment creditor, sought an order to show cause why Plise should not be held in contempt of court. Before the hearing on that motion, Plise filed a bankruptcy petition. Alper participated in the bankruptcy proceeding and obtained an order from the bankruptcy court granting relief from the automatic stay and allowing the district court to conduct a hearing and enter an order with regard to Plise’s alleged criminal contempt. The district court found Plise guilty of contempt of court and sentenced him to twenty-one days incarceration. The court, however, conditionally allowed Plise to avoid criminal contempt punishment. Alper filed this petition seeking a writ of prohibition arguing that the district court exceeded the scope of the bankruptcy court’s order granting relief from the automatic stay when it allowed him to avoid incarceration by participating in a debtor’s examination. The Supreme Court granted the writ of prohibition, concluding that the district court’s order exceeded the scope of the bankruptcy court’s lift stay order because a contempt order that permits a judgment debtor to purge incarceration is civil, rather than criminal, in nature. View "Alper v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court" on Justia Law

In 2006 plaintiff filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition, but later voluntarily dismissed the petition. A credit-reporting agency received a copies from Lexis and reported the petition “dismissed.” In 2009 the plaintiff’s lawyer demanded that the agency remove all reference to her bankruptcy because it had been dismissed at her behest. The agency refused. In 2012 she told the agency: “my bankruptcy was not dismissed. It was voluntarily withdrawn prior to plan approval.” The agency then purged the reference to the bankruptcy from her file, but did so because it was seven years since she had filed the petition. Plaintiff alleged that by failing to report in 2006 that the petition had been voluntarily withdrawn, the agency had willfully violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and sought damages, 15 U.S.C. 1681n(a). The district court granted the credit agency summary judgment in without deciding whether to certify a class. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. An agency must report that a bankruptcy petition was withdrawn “upon receipt of documentation certifying such withdrawal” and must “follow reasonable procedures to as-sure maximum possible accuracy of the information concerning the” person who had filed for bankruptcy. In 2006, when the plaintiff’s petition was withdrawn, no documentation certifying such withdrawal was submitted to the agency. View "Childress v. Experian Information Solutions" on Justia Law

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission concluded that Battoo committed fraud. Battoo and his companies, all located outside the United States, defaulted in the suits. The district judge froze all assets pending a final decision about ownership. The court appointed a Receiver to marshal the remaining assets and try to determine ownership. The Receiver has been recognized as the assets’ legitimate controller in several other nations, including China (Hong Kong), Guernsey, and the Bahamas. Battoo defied the injunction and transferred control of some investment vehicles, located in the British Virgin Islands, to court-appointed Liquidators, who asked the judge to modify the injunction and allow them to distribute assets located in the U.S. or England immediately. The Liquidators maintain that, because Battoo no longer has control, the justification for freezing the assets has lapsed. The court assumed that the Liquidators are now under judicial control, but declined to modify the injunction, ruling that the funds should remain available so that an eventual master plan of distribution can treat all investors equitably. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. It is not clear whether some investment interests can be disentangled reliably from those affected by Battoo’s frauds against U.S. investors; the Liquidators have not argued that any investor is suffering loss as a result of the Receiver’s investment decisions. View "Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Battoo" on Justia Law

Debtor filed for bankruptcy in 2011 and claimed numerous exemptions. At issue are debtor's requests for exemption for: (1) an annuity worth well over $150,000; and (2) the nearly $15,000 cash surrender value of a whole life insurance policy. The court affirmed the denial of both exemptions, concluding that Georgia Code 44-13-100(a)(9) does not violate equal protection where it is rationally related to the purpose of bankruptcy legislation and where Section 44-13-100(a)(9) does not violate the Bankruptcy Clause. A plain reading of 11 U.S.C. 522 does not, as debtor alleges, allow a bankruptcy debtor to use a state exemption statute where the state itself has rendered the statute inapplicable. Rather, very near the opposite is true; states have been authorized to define and restrict the applicability of their bankruptcy exemptions. View "McFarland v. Wallace" on Justia Law

Lariat and Tenant entered into a 10-year lease for operation of a restaurant. Debtor personally guaranteed Tenant's performance. Tenant was evicted in 2010 and obtained a judgment of $2,224,237.00, plus interest and attorney fees. In 2011, Lariat filed an involuntary chapter 7 petition against Debtor, which was dismissed by agreement. The same creditors filed suit against Debtor's wife. After the involuntary petition was dismissed, they added Debtor as a codefendant. The court held Debtor and his wife liable for fraudulent transfers ($795,098.00) and awarded interest and costs. In 2013, Debtor sued Lariat; the court dismissed, based on collateral estoppel. Appeal is pending. In 2014 Tenant filed a chapter 11 petition and an adversary proceeding against Lariat. The bankruptcy court dismissed the adversary proceeding. On the Trustee's motion, Tenant’s chapter 11 case was dismissed. Debtor filed his own chapter 11 petition. Lariat filed a proof of claim for $1,734,539.00. Debtor objected on grounds that the amount sought based on Debtor's personal guaranty under the lease exceeded the amount allowable under 11 U.S.C. 502(b)(6) and the amount sought based on fraudulent transfers was duplicative of, and subject to the same limitation as, sought based on thatl guaranty. Lariat filed an amended proof of claim for $1,610,787.00. The court capped Lariat's claim at $445,272.93. The Eighth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel remanded for recalculation of damages under the lease and of fees and expenses, but agreed that damages for fraudulent transfers were duplicative. View "Lariat Co., Inc. v. Wigley" on Justia Law