Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

Energytec, owner and operator of gas pipelines, filed for bankruptcy relief under Chapter 11 in 2009. The bankruptcy court authorized a sale of a pipeline system to Red Water Resources, but reserved for later determination whether the sale was free and clear of Newco's right to certain fees and other interests in the pipeline. A year after the sale, the bankruptcy court ruled that Newco's rights were not covenants running with the land and that the sale of the pipeline system was free and clear of Newco's interests. The district court affirmed. The court vacated, however, concluding that Newco's interests, including a transportation fee, security interest, and right to consent to assignments, were covenants running with the land. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Newco Energy v. EnergyTec, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

Debtors filed a chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. Prior to the petition, Collection Associates filed a collection suit against one of the debtors in Nebraska state court and obtained a judgment. On appeal, debtors challenged an order of the bankruptcy court denying their complaint to avoid and recover transfers of wages to Collection Associates. The bankruptcy appellate panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's judgment where 11 U.S.C. 547(c)(8) applied as a defense to this preference action because the amount sought to be recovered was less than $600. View "Pierce, et al. v. Collection Assoc., Inc." on Justia Law

Creditor appealed the bankruptcy court's denial of her claim against the estate of debtor, her former husband and business partner. The state courts had determined that debtor still owed money to creditor after they divorced and unwound their "monster truck" business. The court had jurisdiction over the appeal under 28 U.S.C. 158(d) because the decisions of the bankruptcy court and the district court were final orders as to creditor's claim. The court found that the issues concerning the validity of creditor's claim were previously adjudicated in the state courts and that the doctrine of issue preclusion prevented the bankruptcy court from rehearing those issues. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Adams v. Adams" on Justia Law

In the 90 days prior to filing for bankruptcy Debtor made payments for personnel to Roth Staffing totaling $81,997.57. After these preferential transfers, but before the petition was filed, Roth provided Debtor with services valued at $100,660.88 and was not paid. Debtor sought to pay its employees and independent contractors prepetition wages, compensation, and related benefits. The Bankruptcy Court granted the motion and after filing its bankruptcy petition, Debtor paid $72,412.71 to Roth for pre-petition staffing services. Debtor’s successor in interest later sought to avoid transfers made to Roth. Under the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. 547(b), the trustee may avoid certain preferential transfers made by a debtor to a creditor during the 90 days before its bankruptcy petition was filed. A creditor who gives the debtor new value after a preference payment, however, may use the “new value” defense to offset an otherwise avoidable preference. That defense is not applicable to the extent that, thereafter, the debtor makes “an otherwise unavoidable transfer” to the creditor on account of the value received. The Bankruptcy Court, district court, and Third Circuit agreed that where “an otherwise unavoidable transfer” is made after the filing of a bankruptcy petition, it does not affect the new value defense.View "In Re: Friedman's Inc" on Justia Law

The debtors borrowed money secured by mortgages on real estate. The mortgages were recorded by the lenders to ensure the priority of their liens. The recorded mortgages did not state the maturity date of the secured debt or the interest rate. Those terms were included in the promissory notes, which were incorporated by reference in the mortgages. The debtors filed for bankruptcy. The trustees filed adversary complaints under 11 U.S.C. 544(a)(3), seeking to avoid the mortgages because they did not state the maturity dates or interest rates. In one case, the bankruptcy court granted summary judgment in favor of the trustee, but the district court reversed and granted judgment for the lender. In the other case, the bankruptcy court granted summary judgment in favor of the lender. The Seventh Circuit held that the trustee’s so-called “strong-arm” power to “avoid … any obligation incurred by the debtor that is voidable by—a bona fide purchaser of real property … from the debtor” could not be used to avoid the mortgages under a 2013 amendment to the Illinois statute on the form for recorded mortgage, 765 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/11. View "Bruegge v. Farmer State Bank of Hoffman" on Justia Law

Debtor appealed the bankruptcy court's order sustaining the trustee's objection to debtor's claimed exemption. Debtor had filed a petition for relief under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code and had claimed exempt, as a public assistance benefit under MO.REV.STAT. 513.430.1(10)(a), the portion of her 2012 federal income tax refund that was attributable to a child tax credit allowed under 26 U.S.C. 24. The court affirmed the bankruptcy court's order sustaining the trustee's objection to debtor's claimed exemption, concluding that the refundable portion of the child tax credit was not a public assistance benefit within the meaning of the statute and could not be claimed exempt under the statute. View "Hardy v. Fink" on Justia Law

Horsfall worked as a real estate agent for First Weber, 2001-2002, and was the listing agent on First Weber’s contract with Call, who was trying to sell property. The contract gave First Weber exclusive rights collect commissions for sale of the property during the listing period and an exclusive right to collect commissions from sales to defined “protected buyers” for one year after the listing expired. The Acostas made an offer on the property and became “protected buyers.” Call’s contract with First Weber ended in August and at the same time, Horsfall left First Weber to establish his own brokerage, Picket Fence. In October, the Acostas contacted Horsfall. Without involving First Weber, Horsfall resuscitated the transaction with Call. The Acostas and Call executed a sales contract for the Call property. Picket Fence received a $6,000 commission, inconsistent with Horsfall’s status as First Weber’s agent under the earlier contract and in violation of Wisconsin real estate practice rules. Six years later, First Weber sued Horsfall in state court, asserting r breach of contract, tortious interference, and unjust enrichment. The state court entered a judgment against Horsfall for $10,978.91. Horsfall filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, listing First Weber as a creditor. First Weber responded that its judgment was non‐dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(6), as involving “willful and malicious injury.” The bankruptcy court, district court, and Seventh Circuit found the debt dischargeable. View "First Weber Grp., Inc. v. Horsfall" on Justia Law

The Debtor leased a building and, during liquidation in bankruptcy, assumed the lease, 11 U.S.C. 365, and sold the leasehold interest (and other assets) to Tenant. The bankruptcy judge approved the transaction in 2007, after Landlord did not object to the Debtor’s assertion that Landlord did not have any outstanding claim against the Debtor. The approval barred any claims based on pre‐sale events. The lease requires Tenant to maintain the roof. In 2010 the Landlord sued Tenant in state court, based on that obligation. By motion in the closed bankruptcy proceeding, Tenant asked the bankruptcy court to interpret the 2007 order as blocking the claim. The bankruptcy judge concluded that the order did not affect continuing obligations such as the duty to keep leased premises in good repair; Landlord requested a prospective remedy, not damages. The district court disagreed, ruling that Landlord can enforce the good‐repair clause only to the extent that defects in the roof first occurred after the lease’s assumption in bankruptcy. The Sixth Circuit dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction, because the district court did not enter an injunction. The court expressed hope that the bankruptcy judge or the district judge will attend to several issues inherent in both opinions. View "Harrison Kishwaukee, LLC v. Rockford Acquisition, LLC" on Justia Law

McKenzie’s creditors filed an involuntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in 2008. McKenzie filed a voluntary Chapter 11 petition a month later. The cases were consolidated and converted to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Several weeks before the involuntary petition was filed, McKenzie executed a promissory note and a pledge in favor of GKH for unpaid legal fees. The pledge listed several entities in which McKenzie held an interest, ranging from an “auto mall” to a farm. GKH filed a proof of claim for $750,000, describing the collateral as “Real Estate” and “Other” and sought relief from the automatic stay. The Trustee opposed relief on the ground that the pledge constituted a preferential transfer. The bankruptcy court granted relief with respect to certain real estate, but denied relief as to equity interests. The bankruptcy court held that McKenzie had not validly conveyed his equity interests in certain entities to GKH, that the Trustee could use his hypothetical lien-creditor status and avoidance powers defensively to defeat GKH’s security interest, and that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled because of GKH’s conduct. The district court affirmed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that GKH had the burden of establishing the validity of its claimed security interest and that a trustee may use his hypothetical lien-creditor status and avoidance powers to oppose relief from the automatic stay after expiration of the statutory limitation on avoidance actions under 11 U.S.C. 546(a)(1)(A).View "In re: Grant, Konvalinka & Harrison v. Still" on Justia Law

The bankruptcy court ordered debtor's counsel to return all consideration he received, but in so doing it imposed an additional sanction beyond return of compensation. A bankruptcy judge may regulate attorney compensation by ordering debtor's counsel to return to the estate excessive compensation, 11 U.S.C. 329(b). Separately, a bankruptcy judge has authority to discipline attorneys who violate the disclosure requirements of the Bankruptcy Code and Rules. In this case, the court reversed and remanded the bankruptcy court's order because a bankruptcy judge's reach under the plain language of section 329(b) was limited to attorney compensation. View "Baker v. Cage" on Justia Law