Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

Elgene Phillips was driving his truck when the truck hydroplaned, ran off the road, and rolled over. Phillips died as a result of the accident. As administratrix of the decedent's estate, petitioner Shelia Haynes filed a wrongful death action, alleging that the seatbelt in the decedent's trunk was defective. Chrysler, the manufacturer of the decedent's truck, and Autoliv, the manufacturer of the seatbelt, were named as defendants. The parties settled for $150,000, but the agreement did not contain an apportionment between the two defendants regarding who was responsible for that amount. After Chrysler declared bankruptcy, petitioner filed a motion to sever claims against Chrysler and a motion to compel Autoliv to pay the entire amount of the settlement. The circuit court denied petitioner's motions, and as a result petitioner received only $65,000 in settlement proceeds. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that (1) the terms of the contract were unambiguous, and Autolive was bound by the underlying agreement; and (2) by cashing Autolive's check for $65,000, the petitioner and Autolive did not reach an accord and satisfaction under the facts of the case.View "Haynes v. DaimlerChrysler Corp." on Justia Law

Barabara Rutter filed a wrongful death action in June 2000 against Oakwood, a living center, Prism Rehab, a company providing physical therapy services, and the president and employee of Prism Rehab. Dixon and Prism Rehab filed a notice of bankruptcy stay, and in October 2000 the circuit court entered a bankruptcy stay order. At issue was whether the order dismissed the action or only removed the action from the circuit court's docket. Oakwood argued the order served to discontinue Rutter's action in October 2003 pursuant to Va. Code Ann. 8.01-335(B) because, as of that date, the action had been inactive for three years. The circuit court entered an order in 2009 stating that because Rutter had not re-filed her action before 2003, the case was dismissed. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the statute does not allow the prospective discontinuance of an action and that the 2000 order merely removed Rutter's action from the docket. However, because the 2009 order only adjudicated Rutter's claim against Oakwood, that order was not final for purposes of the appeal. The Court held it had no jurisdiction over the appeal, and dismissed the case without prejudice.View "Rutter v. Oakwood Living Centers" on Justia Law

In 2004, Campbell was involved in a motor vehicle collision with Kocher. In 2005, Campbell filed for bankruptcy and received a notice of discharge a year later. In 2006, Campbell filed two personal injury actions against Kocher and took nonsuits on both of them. In 2008, Campbell filed his third complaint on the same cause of action. Earlier in 2008 the bankruptcy court reopened Campbell's bankruptcy case, and in the proceeding Campbell listed the personal injury claim as an asset and claimed it as exempt property. In 2009 the court held the cause of action to be exempt. During trial for the personal injury action, Kocher filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting lack of standing and the statute of limitations. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed and dismissed, holding that (1) Campbell's cause of action became a part of the bankruptcy estate in 2005 and remained an asset of the estate until it was exempted in 2009, and therefore all three complaints were filed when Campbell lacked standing; and (2) because the complaints were legal nullities, they had no tolling effect on the two-year statute of limitation. View "Kocher v. Campbell" on Justia Law

Debtors obtained a secured loan from an investment fund, for which the Bank served as trustee. Debtors ultimately became insolvent, seeking relief under 11 U.S.C. 1129(b)(2)(A), where debtors sought to confirm a "cramdown" bankruptcy plan over the Bank's objection. The Bankruptcy Court denied debtors' request, concluding that the auction procedures did not comply with section 1129(b)(2)(A)'s requirements for cramdown plans and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Court held that debtors could not obtain confirmation of a Chapter 11 cramdown plan that provided for the sale of collateral free and clear of the Bank's lien, but did not permit the Bank to credit-bid at the sale. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals.View "RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank" on Justia Law

This case arose when petitioners filed for Chapter 12 bankruptcy and then sold their farm. Under Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code, farmer debtors could treat certain claims owed to a governmental unit resulting from the disposition of farm assets as dischargeable, unsecured liabilities. 11 U.S.C. 1222(a). The Court held that federal income tax liability resulting from petitioners' post-petition farm sale was not "incurred by the estate" under 11 U.S.C. 503(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and thus was neither collectible nor dischargeable in the Chapter 12 plan. Therefore, the Court affirmed the judgment of the Ninth Circuit.View "Hall v. United States" on Justia Law

This case stemmed from the long-running dispute between Vickie Lynn Marshall and E. Pierce Marshall over the fortune of J. Howard Marshall II, a man believed to have been one of the richest people in Texas. Vickie married J. Howard, Pierce's father, approximately a year before his death. Shortly before J. Howard died, Vickie filed a suit against Pierce in Texas state court asserting that J. Howard meant to provide for Vickie through a trust, and Pierce tortiously interfered with that gift. The litigation worked its way through state and federal courts in Louisiana, Texas, and California, and two of those courts, a Texas state probate court and the Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, reached contrary decisions on its merits. The Court of Appeals subsequently held that the Texas state decision controlled after concluding that the Bankruptcy Court lacked the authority to enter final judgment on a counterclaim that Vickie brought against Pierce in her bankruptcy proceeding. At issue was whether the Bankruptcy Court Judge, who did not enjoy tenure and salary protections pursuant to Article III of the Constitution, had the statutory authority under 28 U.S.C. 157(b) to issue a final judgment on Vickie's counterclaims and, if so, whether conferring that authority on the Bankruptcy Court was constitutional. The Court held that the Bankruptcy Court had the statutory authority to enter judgment on Vickie's counterclaim as a core proceeding under section 157(b)(2)(C). The Court held, however, that the Bankruptcy Court lacked the constitutional authority under Article III to enter final judgment on a state law counterclaim that was not resolved in the process of ruling on a creditor's proof claim. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals was affirmed.View "Stern v. Marshall" on Justia Law

When petitioners filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, they sought to exclude $300,000 in an inherited individual retirement account (IRA) from the bankruptcy estate using the “retirement funds” exemption, 11 U.S.C. 522(b)(3)(C). The Bankruptcy Court concluded that an inherited IRA does not share the same characteristics as a traditional IRA and disallowed the exemption. The district court reversed. The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that funds in inherited IRAs are not “retirement funds” within the meaning of the code, based on three characteristics. The holder of an inherited IRA may never invest additional money in the account; is required to withdraw money from the account, no matter how far the holder is from retirement; and may withdraw the entire account at any time and use it for any purpose without penalty. Allowing debtors to protect funds in traditional and Roth IRAs ensures that debtors will be able to meet their basic needs during their retirement, but nothing about an inherited IRA’s legal characteristics prevent or discourage an individual from using the entire balance immediately after bankruptcy for purposes of current consumption. The “retirement funds” exemption should not be read to create a “free pass,” The possibility that an account holder can leave an inherited IRA intact until retirement and take only the required minimum distributions does not mean that an inherited IRA bears the legal characteristics of retirement funds. View "Clark v. Rameker" on Justia Law

BIA filed a voluntary chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. The bankruptcy trustee filed a complaint alleging fraudulent conveyance of assets. The bankruptcy court granted the trustee summary judgment. The district court affirmed. While appeal was pending, the Supreme Court held, in Stern v. Marshall, that Article III did not permit a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment on a counterclaim for tortious interference, even though final adjudication of that claim by the bankruptcy court was authorized by statute. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, acknowledging the trustee’s claims as “Stern claims,” i.e., claims designated for final adjudication in the bankruptcy court as a statutory matter, but prohibited from proceeding in that way under Article III, but concluding that defendants had impliedly consented to jurisdiction. The court stated that the bankruptcy court’s judgment could be treated as proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, subject to de novo review by the district court. A unanimous Supreme Court affirmed. Under 28 U.S.C. 157, federal district courts have original jurisdiction in bankruptcy cases and may refer to bankruptcy judges “core” proceedings and “non-core” proceedings. In core proceedings, a bankruptcy judge “may hear and determine . . . and enter appropriate orders and judgments,” subject to the district court’s traditional appellate review. In non-core proceedings—those that are “otherwise related to a case under title 11,” final judgment must be entered by the district court after de novo review of the bankruptcy judge’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, except that the bankruptcy judge may enter final judgment if the parties consent. Lower courts have described Stern claims as creating a statutory gap, since bankruptcy judges are not explicitly authorized to propose findings of fact and conclusions of law in a core proceeding. However, the gap is closed by the Act’s severability provision; when a court identifies a Stern claim, the bankruptcy court should simply treat that claim as non-core. The fraudulent conveyance claims, which Article III does not permit to be treated as “core” claims are “related to a case under title 11” and fit comfortably within the category of claims governed by section 157(c)(1). View "Exec. Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkison" on Justia Law

Law filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. He valued his home at $363,348, claiming that $75,000 of the value was covered by California’s homestead exemption and exempt from the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. 522(b)(3)(A). He claimed that the sum of two liens, including a mortgage in favor of Lin, exceeded the home’s nonexempt value, leaving no equity for other creditors. Siegel, the bankruptcy trustee, challenged the Lin lien in an adversary proceeding. Protracted litigation followed when “Lili Lin” in China claimed to be the beneficiary of Law’s deed of trust. The Bankruptcy Court concluded that the loan was a fiction created to preserve equity in the house and granted Siegel’s motion to “surcharge” Law’s $75,000 homestead exemption, to defray fees incurred in challenging Law’s misrepresentations. The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed. A bankruptcy court may not exercise its authority to carry out the provisions of the Code, 11 U.S.C. 105(a), or its inherent power to sanction abusive litigation practices by taking action prohibited elsewhere in the Code; the “surcharge” contravened section 522, which (by reference to California law) entitled Law to exempt $75,000 of equity in his home and which made that $75,000 “not liable for payment of any administrative expense,” including attorney’s fees. An argument that equated the surcharge with denial of Law’s homestead exemption was not supported by the history of the case. No one timely objected to the exemption, so it became final before the surcharge was imposed. In addition, federal law provides no authority for denial of an exemption on a ground not specified in the Code. The Court acknowledged that its ruling may produce inequitable results, but noted that ample authority remains to address debtor misconduct, including denial of discharge, sanctions for bad-faith litigation conduct, or enforcement of monetary sanctions through the normal procedures for collecting judgments. View "Law v. Siegel" on Justia Law

Petitioner’s father established a trust for the benefit of petitioner and his siblings, and made petitioner the nonprofessional trustee. The trust’s sole asset was the father’s life insurance policy. Petitioner borrowed funds from the trust three times; all borrowed funds were repaid with interest. His siblings obtained a state court judgment for breach of fiduciary duty, though the court found no apparent malicious motive. The court imposed constructive trusts on petitioner’s interests, including his interest in the original trust, to secure payment of the judgment, with respondent serving as trustee for all of the trusts. Petitioner filed for bankruptcy. Respondent opposed discharge of debts to the trust. The Bankruptcy Court held that petitioner’s debts were not dischargeable under 11 U. S. C. 523(a)(4), which provides that an individual cannot obtain a bankruptcy discharge from a debt “for fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, embezzlement, or larceny.” The district court and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court vacated. The term “defalcation” in the Bankruptcy Code includes a culpable state of mind requirement involving knowledge of, or gross recklessness in respect to, the improper nature of the fiduciary behavior. The Court previously interpreted the term “fraud” in the exceptions to mean “positive fraud, or fraud in fact, involving moral turpitude or intentional wrong.” The term “defalcation” should be treated similarly. Where the conduct does not involve bad faith, moral turpitude, or other immoral conduct, “defalcation” requires an intentional wrong. An intentional wrong includes not only conduct that the fiduciary knows is improper but also reckless conduct of the kind that the criminal law often treats as the equivalent. Where actual knowledge of wrongdoing is lacking, conduct is considered as equivalent if, as set forth in the Model Penal Code, the fiduciary “consciously disregards,” or is willfully blind to, “a substantial and unjustifiable risk” that his conduct will violate a fiduciary duty. View "Bullock v. BankChampaign, N. A." on Justia Law