Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

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

The trustee in this case requested a trustee's fee of $17,254.61. At issue was whether, in light of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA), 11 U.S.C. 330, a bankruptcy court is required, absent extraordinary circumstances, to compensate Chapter 7 trustees on a commission basis. Also at issue was whether the court should remand the case to the bankruptcy court with instructions to apply the correct legal standard after an evidentiary hearing. The court held that, absent extraordinary circumstances, Chapter 7 trustees must be paid on a commission basis, as required by section 330(a)(7). The court reversed the district court's decision affirming the bankruptcy court's non-commission-based fee award and remanded with instructions to vacate the trustee's fee award and remanded the matter to the bankruptcy court so that it could determine the proper commission-based fee. View "In Re: H. Jason Gold" on Justia Law

After debtors filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection, GMAC filed this adversary proceeding claiming that it was entitled to a first-priority lien on a home and surrounding twenty-two acres of land by operation of the Arkansas doctrine of equitable subrogation, or to reformation correcting the mutual mistake in its mortgage. The court concluded that, at the time Summit and Southern State made their new loans, knowledge that GMAC made a mistake by describing the wrong property on its earlier mortgage was not knowledge that GMAC had or even claimed to have a superior unrecorded interest, because GMAC had for many months made no attempt to correct the known error, or to reform its mortgage; the principle of Killam v. Tex. Oil & Gas Corp. did not apply to mortgage priority disputes; and the blame for the uncertainty regarding GMAC's lien position lies with GMAC. Had GMAC taken timely action, it would have held the senior recorded lien. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of relief for GMAC. View "Owcen Loan Servicing, LLC v. Summit Bank, et al." on Justia Law

Hall, the debtor in bankruptcy, is a former distributor of asbestos products. Tens of thousands of asbestos claims were filed against Hall, which had $10 million remaining in insurance coverage from one of its insurers, Integrity, itself bankrupt. Integrity challenged whether the policy covered the loss for which Hall was seeking indemnity. The parties agreed to settle for $4.125 million; the bankruptcy judge approved the settlement. Columbia, an excess insurer of Hall’s asbestos liabilities, with maximum coverage of $6 million, was concerned that Hall, having settled against Integrity rather than persisting in litigation, increased the likelihood of Columbia’s having to honor its secondary‐coverage obligation. Columbia filed an objection to the settlement. The bankruptcy judge refused to consider the objection, on the ground that Columbia had no right to object. The district judge affirmed. The Seventh Circuit, affirmed, stating that the matter was not a question of “standing,” but whether the Bankruptcy Code, in providing that “a party in interest, including the debtor, the trustee, a creditors’ committee, an equity security holders’ committee, a creditor, an equity security holder, or any indenture trustee, may raise and may appear and be heard on any issue in a case [arising] under” the Code, 11 U.S.C. 1109(b), conferred a right to be heard on a debtor’s insurer. View "In Re: C.P. Hall Co." on Justia Law

The Trustee appealed from the bankruptcy court's holding that a property tax refund was exempt under Minn. Stat. 550.37, subd. 14, as "government assistance based on need." The property tax refund at issue is authorized by the State of Minnesota Property Tax Refund Act, Minn. Stat. 290A.01-290A.27. The bankruptcy appellate panel concluded that the property tax refund at issue here was not government assistance based on need and was therefore not exempt under section 550.37, subd. 14. Accordingly, the panel reversed the bankruptcy court's order. View "Manty v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Creditor appealed from the bankruptcy court's order directing the clerk to reject the filing of his dischargeability complaint based on creditor's failure to make a motion to reopen the underlying bankruptcy case. The bankruptcy appellate panel reversed, holding that reopening a case is not a prerequisite to filing a dischargeability complaint. View "Goldstein v. Diamond" on Justia Law

Hess sought to enforce debtor's guaranty on a contract between Hess and Premier. Debtor was a member in Premier and served as guarantor of the agreement. The agreement stated that Hess would provide certain management services related to the operation of the Fluker Pit. The bankruptcy court held that Premier breached the contract in bad faith, but the court limited the damages award to $375,000. Hess appealed to the district court, which overruled the bankruptcy court and awarded Hess the full value of the contract - $1.5 million. Debtor appealed. The court concluded that a Louisiana court would find that the bad faith damage clause did not enhance the damages owed Hess beyond the time the Fluker Pit closed. Instead, giving full effect to the bad faith damages provision, the court found that Hess was only able to establish as a "direct consequence" of the breach damages up until the November 12th date. Awarding Hess damages beyond that point would not serve the provision's purpose of conferring damages consequentially linked to bad faith breach, but instead would punitively award damages unconnected with the facts surrounding the breach. Further, Louisiana's rule on mitigation makes clear that a non-breaching party must take "reasonable efforts to mitigate the damage caused by the obligor's failure to perform." This demonstrates that damages are not set in stone, and strengthened the court's conclusion that post-breach events may effect the amount of damages award. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Hess Mgmt. Firm, L.L.C., et al. v. Bankston, et al." on Justia Law

Debtor transferred her interest in real property to AGC, a corporation wholly owned by her husband. Seven months later, debtor declared bankruptcy and the bankruptcy court concluded that the conveyance was constructively fraudulent. The bankruptcy court found AGC did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that it paid for the property or intended to pay for it on the date of the property's purchase. The bankruptcy court also found that, at the time of the purchase, the parties intended that AGC would serve as the property's tenant, not the property's owner. AGC also did not prove that it intended to own the property on the date of acquisition. Therefore, the bankruptcy court found no justification for a resulting trust. The district court found no fault in the bankruptcy court's findings of fact, but nonetheless reversed. The court reversed the district court insofar as it found a resulting trust to sever debtor's legal and equitable interests in the property. Accordingly, the court vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded for further proceedings. View "Anderson v. Architectural Glass Construction" on Justia Law

Debtor sought attorneys' fees incurred in defense of ASC's appeal of the bankruptcy court's determination that ASC had violated the automatic stay. The court concluded that, because debtor was not pursuing a damages award, but rather defending ASC's appeal of a previous finding of stay violation and thereby "remedying the stay violation," Sternberg v. Johnson did not prohibit the awarding of attorneys' fees at issue here. Accordingly, the court affirmed the bankruptcy appellate panel's reversal and remand of the bankruptcy court's decision denying debtor's request for an award of attorneys' fees. View "In re: Schwartz-Tallard" on Justia Law