Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

As part of a redevelopment project partially financed by Sioux City, Iowa, Civic borrowed from Northwest Bank to build a movie theater complex. Main Street leased the space in 2004. Main Street did not fully pay its rent and Civic did not fully make its loan payments. After mediation, Civic and Main Street agreed on an amended lease that substantially lowered the rent. Eventually, Civic filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, arguing that the court should subordinate the interests of Northwest and the city because they had defrauded Civic into accepting the amended lease. The bankruptcy court issued orders deciding that the amended lease applied. Civic appealed the lease orders; the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel ruled that Civic’s appeal was improperly interlocutory and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Civic filed a second plan, which restated the fraud argument. The bankruptcy court denied confirmation and rejected the fraud argument, but did not dismiss the bankruptcy petition. Civic appealed the new order and, again, the three earlier orders. The BAP again dismissed. Civic appealed all four orders. The Eighth Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; a determination of the BAP is not final unless the underlying order of the bankruptcy court is final. View "Civic Partners Sioux City, LLC v. Main Street Theaters, Inc." on Justia Law

Debtor, a New York City tenant, filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and listed the value of her apartment lease on Schedule B as personal property exempt from the bankruptcy estate as a "local public assistance benefit." At issue was whether the value inherent in debtor's rent-stabilized lease as a consequence of the protections afforded by New York's Rent Stabilization Code, N.Y. Comp. Code R. & Regs. tit. 9, 2520.1, made the lease, or some portion of its value, exempt from debtor's bankruptcy estate as a "local public assistance benefit" within the meaning of New York Debtor and Creditor Law 282(2). The court certified this unsettled issue to the New York Court of Appeals, which held that a rent‐stabilized lease qualified as a local public assistance benefit. Rejecting the Trustee’s argument that “benefits” should be limited to cash payments, the court noted that the rent‐stabilization program had “all of the characteristics of a local 10 public assistance benefit” under the statute and that an exemption was consistent with the purpose of protecting a debtor’s essential needs, including housing. The Second Circuit then reversed and remanded to allow Debtor to claim the exemption from her bankruptcy estate. View "Santiago-Monteverde v. Pereira" on Justia Law

DVI Receivables XIV, LLC; DVI Receivables XVI, LLC; DVI Receivables XVII, LLC; DVI Receivables XVIII, LLC; DVI Receivables XIX, LLC; DVI Funding, LLC (collectively, the "DVI Entities"); Lyon Financial Services, Inc. d/b/a U.S. Bank Portfolio Services ("Lyon"); and U.S. Bank, N.A. ("USB") (collectively, "Appellants") appealed a district court decision to affirm a bankruptcy court's final order awarding appellee Maury Rosenberg attorney's fees and costs. The DVI Entities filed an involuntary bankruptcy petition against appellee Rosenberg. After the bankruptcy court dismissed the petition, the court awarded attorney's fees and costs to appellee Rosenberg. The bankruptcy court granted Rosenberg's motion and dismissed the involuntary petition with prejudice. The bankruptcy court found, inter alia, that the DVI Entities were not eligible creditors of Rosenberg because his 2005 guaranty did not run to the DVI Entities. The DVI Entities therefore lacked standing as a matter of law to file an involuntary petition against Rosenberg. In his adversary complaint, Rosenberg asserted federal claims to recover attorney's fees, costs, and damages he incurred because of the filing of the involuntary petition, which the bankruptcy court had dismissed. After careful review of the record and the parties' briefs, and following oral argument, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. The Court affirmed the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's award of the following three categories of attorney's fees and costs: (1) fees to obtain the dismissal, (2) appellate fees, and (3) fees on fees. The Eleventh Circuit vacated the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's award of the fourth category of fees and costs, those incurred to prosecute Rosenberg's bad-faith claims for damages, as prematurely entered. The case was remanded back to the district court: (1) to deduct from the total award the limited amount of fees and costs that were incurred solely for the legal work done to prosecute Rosenberg's bad-faith claims for damages; and (2) to reconsider that deducted fee and cost amount along with the motion to supplement. View "DVI Receivables XIV, LLC, et al. v. Rosenberg" on Justia Law

In these consolidated appeals, the Redmond Group and Zeltser Group dispute over ownership of, and control over, three involuntary debtors: Fisher Island, Little Rest, and Mutual Benefits (collectively, the "Alleged Debtors"). Litigation of the ownership issue in three bankruptcy cases produced five consolidated appeals of four district court orders. After careful review of the record and the parties' briefs, the court found no reversible error and affirmed all four orders: the district court's denial of Zeltser Group's motion to withdraw reference of the ownership issue; the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's summary judgment order in favor of the Redmond Group in the Fisher Island and Little Rest cases; the district court's order dismissing, for lack of standing, certain non-party appeals from the bankruptcy court's summary judgment order; and the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's final judgment in favor of the Redmond Group in the Mutual Benefits case. View "Fisher Island Ltd. v. Solby+Westbrae Partners" on Justia Law

In 2001, N.D. Laws 53-06.2-10.1 was amended to authorize “account wagering,” a form of parimutuel wagering in which an individual deposits money in an account and, through a licensed simulcast service provider authorized to operate a simulcast parimutuel wagering system, uses the balance to pay for parimutuel wagers. The legislature did not make corresponding changes to section 53-06.2-11 or otherwise alter the statutory takeout formulas to authorize a tax on account wagering until 2007. Racing Services (RSI), formerly a state-licensed horse racing simulcast service provider, filed bankruptcy. PW Enterprises, its largest non-governmental creditor filed suit on behalf of all creditors to recover money the state collected from RSI as taxes on parimutuel account wagering. The district court held that the money must be returned to the bankruptcy estate because North Dakota law did not authorize the state to collect taxes on account wagering before 2007. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. Though some members of the legislature may have understood account wagering would be taxed similarly to existing forms of parimutuel wagering, that belief does not make the statute as written ambiguous or require a court to strain to infer a legislative intent that is entirely absent from the statutory language. View "PW Enters., Inc. v. North Dakota" on Justia Law

In 1988 Sutherland received breast implants in North Carolina. She filed suit in North Carolina five years later, after learning that the silicone in her implants could be causing a variety of serious medical problems. The Silicone’s manufacturer, Dow Corning, filed for bankruptcy in Michigan, and Sutherland’s suit was transferred there. In 2012, 24 years after Sutherland received the implants, the district court concluded that Sutherland’s claim was barred by Michigan’s statute of limitations and granted summary judgment to the defendant. The Sixth Circuit reversed, reasoning that the district court should have applied North Carolina’s law instead of Michigan’s, and should have concluded that there was a genuine factual issue as to whether Sutherland’s claim was timely-filed under North Carolina law. View "Sutherland v. DCC Litig. Facility, Inc." on Justia Law

The four debtors involved in these bankruptcy appeals all failed to timely file their Massachusetts income tax returns and failed to pay their taxes. Each debtor eventually filed his late tax returns but still failed to pay the taxes that were due. Each debtor eventually filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and sought a ruling that their obligation to pay the unpaid taxes was dischargeable. The Massachusetts Department of Revenue argued that unpaid taxes for which no return was timely filed by the Commonwealth’s statutory deadline fit within an exception to discharge under 11 U.S.C. 532(a)(1)(B)(i). The bankruptcy courts split three to one in favor of the debtors. In the two cases appealed to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP), the BAP sided with the debtors. In the two cases appealed to the district court, the court granted summary judgment to the Department. The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of the Department and reversed the BAP’s grant of judgment for the debtors, holding that a Massachusetts state income tax return filed after the date by which Massachusetts requires such returns to be filed does not constitute a “return” under 11 U.S.C. 523(a) such that unpaid taxes due under the return can be discharged in bankruptcy. View "Fahey v. Mass. Dep’t of Revenue" on Justia Law

Debtor appealed from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's decision affirming the bankruptcy court's dismissal of her voluntary Chapter 12 petition. The court affirmed the dismissal of debtor's petition because her "aggregate debts" exceeded $3,792,650, the statutory limitation for Chapter 12 eligibility in effect at the time debtor filed her petition pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 101(18)(A). The court concluded that a creditor's claims remains a "debt" so long as it is enforceable against either the debtor or the debtor's property. Accordingly, the debtor's "aggregate debts" include the amount of that claim, even after a prior discharge from personal liability under Chapter 7. In this case, debtor's schedules lists claims totaling $4.1 million, which is above the cap for Chapter 12 eligibility in effect at the time of her petition. View "Davis v. U.S. Bank" on Justia Law

Sterling Development Group Three, LLC, and Sterling Development Group Eight, LLC, appealed a judgment dismissing their action against James Carlson to collect on two personal guarantees, and an order awarding Carlson costs and disbursements. In 1983, Carlson founded PRACS Institute, Ltd., a medical research facility which began operating in East Grand Forks, Minnesota. In 1999, Sterling Development Group Three entered into a 15-year lease agreement with PRACS for a building located in East Grand Forks. Carlson signed the lease agreement as the president of PRACS. Carlson also signed a personal guaranty. When PRACS expanded in 2004, Sterling Development Group Eight built an expansion to the Sterling Three building, and PRACS entered into a lease agreement with Sterling Eight for a term running simultaneously with the Sterling Three lease. Carlson signed a similar personal guaranty for the Sterling Eight lease. In January 2006, Carlson sold PRACS to Contract Research Solutions, Inc., which the parties refer to as Cetero. The Sterling companies consented to this "change of control." Carlson's daily involvement in PRACS ceased at that point. Carlson received Cetero stock in the sale and became a member of Cetero's seven-member board of directors. In 2010, Cetero suspended its East Grand Forks operations, but continued to pay rent to the Sterling companies. In the spring of 2012, Cetero filed for bankruptcy. The bankruptcy trustee eventually rejected the East Grand Forks Cetero leases with the Sterling companies and stopped paying rent. The Sterling companies then brought this action against Carlson to collect more than $600,000 for unpaid rent under his personal guarantees. Following a bench trial, the district court dismissed the action. The court found Carlson was exonerated from liability under the personal guarantees because the original lease agreements had been altered in three respects by the Sterling companies and Cetero or PRACS without Carlson's knowledge or consent. The Sterling companies argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that the district court erred in finding the original lease agreements were contractually altered without Carlson's knowledge or consent, resulting in exoneration of his personal guaranty obligations. Because the district court's finding that the principal's contractual obligations were altered without Carlson's knowledge or consent was not clearly erroneous, and the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding costs and disbursements, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment and order. View "Sterling Development Group Three, LLC v. Carlson" on Justia Law

Miller purchased an annuity from Minnesota Life Insurance, with a lump-sum “Purchase Payment” of $267,319.48, consisting of funds from his individual retirement account. Minnesota Life agreed to make an annual “Income Payment” of $40,497.95 to Miller for the next eight years. Miller later filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and claimed that the annuity was exempt under 11 U.S.C. 522(b)(3)(C), as “retirement funds to the extent that those funds are in a fund or account that is exempt from taxation under section . . . 408 . . . of the Internal Revenue Code.” Section 408 provides that an individual retirement account and an individual retirement annuity are exempt from taxation as qualified retirement plans, 26 U.S.C. 408(a), (b), (e)(1). The Eighth Circuit affirmed. The exemption generally applies even if the debtor transferred the retirement funds to the qualified retirement plan from another qualified retirement plan. There is no dispute that the funds used to purchase Miller’s annuity were retirement funds that came from Miller’s individual retirement account, which was a qualified individual retirement account. The court rejected the trustee’s argument that Miller’s annuity is not a qualified individual retirement annuity. View "Running v. Miller" on Justia Law