Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

Respondent obtained a home mortgage loan from Lender. Lender obtained a mortgage lender bond from Petitioner and later filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the United States Code. Respondent subsequently filed a complaint naming Petitioner as defendant solely as surety for Lender. At the time this suit was filed, Lender was bankrupt and judgment proof. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the bond conditions had not been satisfied because Respondent had not obtained a judgment against the bond principal, Lender. The circuit court certified a question of law to the Supreme Court, which answered that the bond at issue was a judgment bond and that the unambiguous bond language requires an aggrieved party to obtain a judgment against the principal before maintaining an action against the surety of the bond. View "Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md. v. James" on Justia Law

Debtors filed a Chapter 7 petition and received a discharge in February 2008. On July 3, 2008, Debtors filed a Chapter 13 case to pay an auto loan and tax obligations, to cure the default on a first mortgage, and to avoid a wholly unsecured second home mortgage. The Amended Chapter 13 Plan was confirmed in September 2008 and provided: Debtors will avoid the mortgage and/or judgment liens of Amerifirst Finance, Squires Construction, and the Ohio Department of Taxation, which are wholly unsecured under 11 U.S.C. 506(a), 1322(b)(2) and 1325(a)(5)(B), and which impair Debtors’ exemption in their home (11 U.S.C. 522(f)); those unsecured claim shall be disallowed as discharged in Debtors’ Chapter 7 Bankruptcy unless otherwise allowed by separate order. Because Debtors had received a Chapter 7 discharge within the preceding four years, they were ineligible for discharge under Chapter 13, 11 U.S.C. 1328(f)(1). Upon completion of plan payments, the Chapter 13 Trustee sought an Order Releasing Wages and Closing Case Without Discharge, which was granted on May 6, 2013. The Debtors sought to avoid Amerifirst’s lien to effectuate the confirmed Chapter 13 Plan. The residence was valued at not more than $100,800 and was encumbered by a first mortgage of $106,306.38 and by Amerifirst’s second mortgage of $9,415.28. No party objected, but the Bankruptcy Court denied the motion, stating that the lien stripping power of 11 U.S.C. 506 was unavailable. The Sixth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reversed and remanded, holding that the wholly unsecured status of Amerifirst’s claim, rather than eligibility for a discharge is determinative.View "In re: Cain" on Justia Law

In 2008, plaintiff filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. During the proceeding, LVNV filed a proof of claim to collect the Heilig-Meyers debt, notwithstanding the limitations period had expired four years earlier. At issue on appeal was whether a proof of claim to collect a stale debt in Chapter 13 bankruptcy violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692-1692p. The court answered in the affirmative. The FDCPA's broad language, the court's precedent, and the record compelled the conclusion that defendants' conduct violated a number of the Act's protective provisions. Accordingly, the court reversed the orders of the bankruptcy court and the district court dismissing the adversary proceeding.View "Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, et al." on Justia Law

Debtor filed a bankruptcy petition under Chapter 13, made regular payments from his wages to the trustee under a confirmed Chapter 13 plan, and eventually converted his case to Chapter 7. At issue was whether the undistributed payments held by the Chapter 13 trustee at the time of conversion should be returned to the debtor or distributed to creditors under the Chapter 13 plan. The court concluded that the creditors' claim to the undistributed funds is superior to that of the debtor. Accordingly, the payments must be distributed to creditors in this case. The court reversed and remanded.View "Viegelahn v. Harris, III" on Justia Law

Debtor served as the trustee of a consolidated case (NWFX). As a result of debtor's fraud, the NWFX court entered judgment against debtor in favor of the bankruptcy estate for $199,979.26 plus interest. After debtor filed his own petition for Chapter 11 bankruptcy relief, plaintiff filed a complaint to determine the dischargeability of the debt underlying the judgment. On plaintiff's motion for summary judgment under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(4), the bankruptcy court concluded that the debt was nondischargeable and entered a judgment to that effect. Reviewing the matter de novo, the panel determined that there was no genuine issue of material fact and that plaintiff was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The panel rejected debtor's arguments that it was unclear whether plaintiff complied with Arkansas law for reviving the judgment. Accordingly, the panel affirmed the judgment of the bankruptcy court.View "Shaffer v. Bird, II" on Justia Law

In 2006, the Affiliated Group, including AmTrust, entered into a tax-sharing agreement (TSA) to allocate tax liability. In 2009, AFC, the parent of AmTrust, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The Office of Thrift Supervision closed AmTrust and placed it into FDIC receivership. AFC filed a consolidated 2008 tax return for the Affiliated Group showing a net operating loss of $805 million, with AmTrust’s losses accounting for $767 million of that total. After AFC claimed that any refund would belong to its bankruptcy estate, the parties agreed to deposit refunds in a segregated account pending adjudication. The IRS issued the Affiliated Group’s $194,831,455 refund to AFC. The FDIC claimed that $170,409,422, plus interest, belonged to AmTrust because that portion resulted from offsetting AmTrust’s 2008 net operating loss against its income in prior years. AFC concedes that AmTrust’s tax situation generated the refund. The FDIC sought a declaratory judgment. The district court granted AFC summary judgment, stating that the TSA’s use of terms such as “reimbursement” and “payment” established a debtor-creditor relationship between AFC and its subsidiaries as to tax refunds. The FDIC offered extrinsic evidence that the parties intended to create an agency or trust relationship under Ohio law with respect to tax refunds, but the district court rejected those arguments without analysis. The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded for consideration of the FDIC’s evidence.View "Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. AmFin Financial Corp." on Justia Law

The Diaz Defendants challenged the bankruptcy court's and district court's orders invalidating the transfer to them of a Mexican coastal villa owned by debtors and requiring them to convey the property to Kismet for the benefit of debtors' bankruptcy estate. The court concluded that, notwithstanding the local action doctrine, 28 U.S.C. 1334(e) granted the bankruptcy court exclusive in rem jurisdiction over the Villa interest; given the court's ruling that H&G was debtors' alter ego and its substantive consolidation of H&G with the bankruptcy estate, the Villa interest was property of the estate as of the petition date; the bankruptcy court properly declined to honor the forum selection clauses in the Mexican contracts and declined to abstain from ordering recovery of the property based on international comity; Mexico was not a necessary party and the bankruptcy court could enter judgment without Mexico; the bankruptcy court properly applied U.S. law rather than Mexican law; and the bankruptcy properly found that Martha Barba de la Torre purchased the property in bad faith. Accordingly, the court affirmed the bankruptcy court's judgment with respect to the postpetition transfer action; the fraudulent conveyance action is moot as a result; and the district court granted Kismet's and the Diaz Defendants' requests for judicial notice.View "In re: Icenhower" on Justia Law

In 2005 Detroit created not-for-profit corporations and issued debt instruments through those corporations, which passed the proceeds from sales of certificates on to the city, to fund pensions. The city covered the principal and interest payments. Some of the certificates had floating interest rates. To hedge that risk, the service corporations executed interest-rate swaps with banks. When interest rates fell below a threshold, the city had to pay the banks, which was offset by low interest rates owed to investors. If interest rates rose, the city would owe debtholders more interest, but received swap payments. Investors were unwilling to buy certificates and banks were unwilling to execute swaps unless an insurer guaranteed the obligations. Syncora insured the city’s obligations ($176 million in certificates; $100 million in swaps). A 2009 credit downgrade gave the banks the right to terminate the swaps and demand payment ($300 million). To avoid that, the city agreed (Syncora consented) to give the banks an optional early termination right, effectively ending the hedge protection, and established a “lockbox” system, under which the city would place excise taxes it receives from casinos into an account to be held until the city deposits its swap obligations (about $4 million per month). The agreement authorized the banks to “trap” the funds in the event of default or termination. In 2013 Syncora served notice that default had occurred. The city obtained a restraining order requiring release of the funds. The city filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 9 one week later. The bankruptcy court held that Syncora had no right to trap tax revenues, which were protected by the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. 362(a)(3). The district court declined to consider an appeal, pending appeal of a determination that the city was an eligible debtor. The Sixth Circuit granted a petition for mandamus, requiring the court to rule.View "In re: Syncora Guar. Inc." on Justia Law

Gambino filed a state lawsuit to clear his title to three properties, claiming that defendants (including Koonce) used forged deeds and other fraudulent documents to improperly gain title. An Illinois state court found that Koonce acted with fraud and malice and ordered him to pay compensatory and punitive damages. After the state appellate court affirmed, but before Koonce satisfied the judgment, Koonce filed for bankruptcy. Gambino filed an adversary action against Koonce in bankruptcy, seeking to have the state judgment declared non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6). The bankruptcy court found that Gambino had conclusively established that Koonce’s debt was non-dischargeable and that Koonce was collaterally estopped from relitigating the issue of his intent. The district court and Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting a claim that the issue of fraudulent intent was not actually litigated in state court. The state court could not have decided that Koonce slandered Gambino’s title or assessed punitive damages without first deciding whether he did so with fraudulent intent. View "Koonce v. Gambino" on Justia Law

These two cases involved the dissolution of two separate law firms. After the law firms’ dissolution, the partners joined other law firms, which took on unfinished legal matters from the dissolved law firms’ former clients. The dissolved law firms subsequently filed for bankruptcy. Separate adversary proceedings were brought against the law firms that hired the dissolved law firms’ partners. The lawsuits were premised on the unfinished business doctrine, and the plaintiffs sought to recover the value of the dissolved law firms’ business for the benefit of the estate’s creditors. At issue before the Court of Appeals was whether, for purposes of administering a related bankruptcy, New York law treats a dissolved law firm’s pending hourly fee matters as its property. The Court of Appeals held that pending hourly fee matters are not partnership property or unfinished business within the meaning of New York’s Partnership Law, as a law firm does not own a client or an engagement and is only entitled to be paid for services actually rendered.View "In re Thelen LLP" on Justia Law