Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs filed suit against Abide, alleging that Abide violated their Fourth Amendment rights while serving as the bankruptcy trustee for plaintiffs’ bankrupt estate and the bankrupt estate of their closely held corporation. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court held that when a bankruptcy trustee acts pursuant to an order by the district court, and the trustee’s actions pursuant to that order are the basis of the claim, the district court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit with respect to that conduct. Because the court held that the district court should not have dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint, the district court may consider Abide’s 12(b)(6) motion in the first instance. The court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "Carroll, Jr. v. Abide" on Justia Law

Carhart and Halaska own CHI. CHI terminated its sales agent, MRO, which filed a federal suit for breach of contract. Carhart bought MRO’s claim for $150,000 and became the plaintiff in a suit against a company of which he was a half owner. Halaska then sued Carhart in Wisconsin state court for breach of fiduciary duties to CHI and Halaska by becoming the plaintiff and by writing checks on CHI bank accounts without approval, depositing payments owed CHI into Carhart’s own account, and withholding accounting and other financial information from Halaska. A receiver was appointed, informed the federal court that CHI had no assets out of which to pay a lawyer, and consented to entry of a $242,000 default judgment (the amount sought by Carhart), giving Carhart a potential profit of $92,000 on his purchase of MRO’s claim. In Carhart’s suit to execute that judgment, CHI’s only asset was its Wisconsin suit against Carhart. The court ordered the sale of CHI’s lawsuit at public auction; Carhart, the only bidder, bought it for $10,000, ending all possibility that CHI could proceed against him for his alleged plundering of the company. The Seventh Circuit reversed. Auctioning off the lawsuit placed Carhart ahead of CHI’s other creditors. Carhart was not a purchaser in good faith. No valid interest is impaired by rescinding the sale, enabling CHI to prosecute its suit against Carhart. View "Carhart v. Carhart-Halaska Int'l, LLC" on Justia Law

After attorney Michael Beyries stole $25,000 from his client, Northbay, he filed for bankruptcy and Northbay sought a determination that the debt was nondischargeable. The bankruptcy court applied the doctrine of unclean hands and held that Northbay's illegal marijuana sales prevented it from obtaining relief. The court reversed, concluding that Beyries's wrongdoing outweighed Northbay's and that application of the unclean hands doctrine to absolve an attorney of responsibility for stealing for his client would be contrary to the public interest. View "Northbay Wellness v. Beyries" on Justia Law

This appeal arose when plaintiffs filed suit against defendants, alleging that defendants violated various Louisiana securities laws, among other state law claims. On appeal, defendants challenged the district court's order of remand on the basis that the district court lacked the discretion to abstain from hearing the case. The court concluded that the district court could not permissively abstain and equitably remand under 28 U.S.C. 1334(c)(1) and 1452(b) without considering the Chapter 15 bankruptcies at issue. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court’s decision to remand the case to state court and remanded to the district court for consideration under its bankruptcy jurisdiction. View "Firefighters' Retirement Sys, v. Citco Group" on Justia Law

Since 1989 Sveum and his brother owned a Wisconsin home-building company, Kegonsa. Kegonsa’s creditor, Stoughton Lumber had sued Sveum and his brother and Kegonsa under Wisconsin law, alleging breach of contract and theft by contractors. Under Wisconsin law, money paid to a contractor by an owner for improvements, constitutes a trust fund in the hands of the contractor until all claims have been paid. The use of such money by a contractor for any other purpose until claims have been paid, is theft by contractor. The suit settled for $650,000. Sveum violated the settlement agreement. Stoughton sued again and obtained a $589,638.10 default judgment. Sveum filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, seeking to discharge his debts, including the debt to Stoughton. Stoughton responded with an adversary proceeding, claiming that Sveum’s debt to Staughton was not dischargeable. The bankruptcy judge agreed and denied discharge. The district court affirmed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting Sveum’s false representations and use of funds held in trust for Stoughton to pay other creditors ahead of Stoughton. The Bankruptcy Code forbids discharge of a debt under those circumstances, 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(4).“ View "Stoughton Lumber Co., Inc. v. Sveum" on Justia Law

Hardy filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy relief. On her Schedule B, Hardy stated that she would be receiving a 2012 tax refund. On her Schedule C, Hardy claimed the majority of the refund as exempt. She noted that $2,000 of the refund was attributable to federal Child Tax Credit (CTC), 26 U.S.C. 24(d). She claimed that the CTC was a "public assistance benefit" that would be exempt from the bankruptcy estate under Missouri law. The bankruptcy court sustained the trustee’s objection, finding that the CTC was not a public assistance benefit because the purpose of the credit was to "reduce the tax burden on working parents and to promote family values" and because the full credit was available to head-of-household filers with Modified Adjusted Gross Incomes (MAGI) of up to $75,000 and joint-married filers with MAGIs of up to $110,000. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed, stating Hardy did not present evidence that only lower income families were eligible for the refundable portion of the credit. The Eighth Circuit reversed, reasoning that Congress demonstrated intent to help low-income families through amendments to the Additional Child Tax Credit statute, sp the credit at issue qualifies as a public assistance benefit. View "Hardy v. Fink" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from plaintiffs' complaint to cancel and discharge a creditor's judgment lien held by defendant Citi Mortgage, Inc. (Citi). Following the conclusion of Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings the Superior Court entered a default judgment in favor of Citi against plaintiffs, and by virtue of its docketing of that judgment, Citi obtained a lien on all of plaintiffs real property in New Jersey. Four years later, plaintiffs instituted a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding in the United States Bankruptcy Court. Because plaintiffs listed the law firm that had represented Citi, rather than Citi itself in their Chapter 7 petition, the bankruptcy court did not provide notice of the proceeding to Citi. After the bankruptcy trustee abandoned two of plaintiffs' New Jersey properties, the bankruptcy court discharged plaintiffs' debt and closed their Chapter 7 case. Citi did not attempt to levy on plaintiffs property at any time prior to the bankruptcy filing and did not seek to enforce its lien in the wake of plaintiffs bankruptcy discharge. More than three years after the bankruptcy discharge, plaintiffs filed this action under N.J.S.A. 2A:16-49.1, which permits a debtor whose debts have been discharged in bankruptcy, to apply to the state court that has entered a judgment against the debtor, or has docketed the judgment, for an order directing the judgment to be canceled and discharged. The trial court granted Citi's motion for summary judgment and dismissed plaintiffs' claim. The court acknowledged that a judgment creditor, such as Citi, who has not levied on the debtor's property prior to the debtor's filing of a bankruptcy petition, may enforce its valid lien following the bankruptcy discharge, but must do so within the year following the discharge. The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division for substantially the same reasons. View "Gaskill v. Citi Mortgage, Inc." on Justia Law

Debtors filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy; each owned a house encumbered by a senior mortgage lien and by a junior mortgage lien held by Bank of America. Because the amount owed on each senior mortgage is greater than each house’s current market value, the bank would receive nothing if the properties were sold today. The debtors sought to void their junior mortgage liens under 18 U.S.C. 506, which provides, “To the extent that a lien secures a claim against the debtor that is not an allowed secured claim, such lien is void.” In each case, the Bankruptcy Court granted the motion; the district court and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded. A debtor in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy may not void a junior mortgage lien under section 506(d) when the debt owed on a senior mortgage lien exceeds the current value of the collateral if the creditor’s claim is both secured by a lien and allowed under Bankruptcy Code section 502. The bank’s claims are “allowed” under the Code. Acknowledging the statutory reference to “an unsecured claim to the extent that the value of such creditor’s interest . . . is less than the amount of such allowed claim,” the Court stated that a “secured claim” is supported by a security interest in property, regardless of whether the value of that property would be sufficient to cover the claim. The Court declined to distinguish between debts that are partially and those that are entirely “underwater.” View "Bank of America, N. A. v. Caulkett" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against the bankruptcy trustee of BFG's estate under 28 U.S.C. 1334(c), alleging that the trustee committed gross negligence and breached his fiduciary duty while acting as trustee by failing to pursue an action against Nationwide. Section 1334(c) provides that district courts may hear proceedings “arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 11." The district court dismissed the case because plaintiffs failed to obtain leave from the bankruptcy court that appointed the trustee before filing suit against him. The court concluded that the Barton doctrine continues to apply regardless of whether plaintiffs’ claims qualify as Stern claims. The court rejected plaintiffs' contention that the Barton doctrine does not apply when a party brings suit in the court that exercises supervisory authority over the bankruptcy court that appointed the trustee. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment, rejecting plaintiffs' argument that Barton is satisfied by filing suit in the district court with supervisory authority over the bankruptcy court. View "Villegas v. Schmidt" on Justia Law

Sharif tried to discharge a debt to Wellness in his Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Wellness argued that a trust Sharif claimed to administer was actually Sharif’s alter ego, and that its assets were part of his bankruptcy estate. The Bankruptcy Court entered default judgment against Sharif. While appeal was pending, but before briefing concluded, the Supreme Court held (Stern v. Marshall) that Article III forbids bankruptcy courts to enter final judgment on claims that seek only to “augment” the bankruptcy estate and would otherwise “exis[t] without regard to any bankruptcy proceeding.” The district court denied Sharif permission to file a supplemental brief and affirmed. The Seventh Circuit determined that Sharif’s “Stern” objection could not be waived and reversed, holding that the Bankruptcy Court lacked constitutional authority to enter judgment on the alter ego claim. The Supreme Court reversed. Article III permits bankruptcy judges to adjudicate Stern claims with the parties’ knowing and voluntary consent. The right to adjudication before an Article III court is “personal” and “subject to waiver,” unless Article III’s structural interests as “an inseparable element of the constitutional system of checks and balances” are implicated; parties “cannot by consent cure the constitutional difficulty.” Allowing bankruptcy courts to decide Stern claims by consent does not usurp the constitutional prerogatives of Article III courts. Bankruptcy judges are appointed and may be removed by Article III judges, hear matters solely on a district court’s reference, and possess no free-floating authority to decide claims traditionally heard by Article III courts. Consent to adjudication by a bankruptcy court need not be express, but must be knowing and voluntary. The Seventh Circuit should decide on remand whether Sharif’s actions evinced the requisite knowing and voluntary consent and whether Sharif forfeited his Stern argument. View "Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif" on Justia Law