Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

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

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