Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

Gary and Jeanette Merritt own four residential properties in Marysville, Washington. Between 2005 and 2007, the Merritts opened five home equity lines of credit (HELOCs), executing five five promissory notes (notes or HELOC agreements) in favor of USAA Federal Savings Bank. The Merritts secured these loans by executing deeds of trust on the properties with USAA as the beneficiary. In November 2012, the Merritts filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The Merritts stopped making their monthly payments on the USAA loans prior to the November 2012 bankruptcy filing. USAA never accelerated any of the loans or acted to foreclose on the properties. In 2020, the Merritts filed four quiet title complaints seeking to remove USAA’s liens on each of the properties. Relying on Edmundson v. Bank of America, NA, 378 P.3d 272 (2016), the Merritts argued that the six-year statute of limitations to enforce the deeds of trust expired six years after February 12, 2013, the day before their bankruptcy discharge. In October 2020, the Merritts moved for summary judgment in each case. In November 2020, the trial court denied each of these motions. In February 2021, USAA moved for summary judgment in each case. USAA argued that the plaintiffs were not entitled to quiet title because the statute of limitations to foreclose on the deeds of trust would not begin to run until the maturity date of each loan, the earliest of which will occur in 2025. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, holding that the the six-year statute of limitations had not begun to run on enforcement of the deeds of trust since none of the loans had yet matured. The issue this case presented for the Washington Supreme Court's review was whether a bankruptcy discharge triggered the statute of limitations to enforce a deed of trust. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and the trial court and hold that bankruptcy discharge did not trigger the statute of limitations to enforce a deed of trust. View "Merritt v. USAA Federal Savings Bank" on Justia Law

The property at issue in this case was a residential home that was purchased in 2007 by Shawn and Stephanie Kurtz. The house was located in a subdivision, which required property owners to pay homeowners association (HOA) assessments to petitioner Copper Creek (Marysville) Homeowners Association. If the assessments were not paid, then Copper Creek was entitled to foreclose on its lien. However, Copper Creek’s lien was “subordinate to any security interest perfected by a first deed of trust or mortgage granted in good faith and for fair value upon such Lot.” The Kurtzes stopped paying their HOA assessments and the home loan in varying times in 2010. The Kurtzes (in the process of divorcing) individually filed for bankruptcy. Neither returned to the house, nor did they make any further payments toward their home loan or their HOA assessments. However, there was no attempt to foreclose on the deed of trust. As a result, the house sat vacant for years and fell into disrepair. The Kurtzes remained the property owners of record and HOA assessments continued to accrue in their names. In 2018, Copper Creek recorded a notice of claim of lien for unpaid HOA assessments, fees, costs, and interest. In January 2019, Copper Creek filed a complaint against the Kurtzes seeking foreclosure on the lien and a custodial receiver for the property. The issue this case presented concerned the statute of limitations to foreclose on a deed of trust securing an installment loan after the borrower receives an order of discharge in bankruptcy. As detailed in Merritt v. USAA Federal Savings Bank, No. 100728-1 (Wash. July 20, 2023), the Washington Supreme Court held that a new foreclosure action on the deed of trust accrues with each missed installment payment, even after the borrower’s personal liability is discharged. Actions on written contracts are subject to a six-year statute of limitations. Therefore, the nonjudicial foreclosure action on the deed of trust in this case was timely commenced as to all unpaid installments within the preceding six years, regardless of the borrowers’ bankruptcy discharge orders. In addition, the Court held the trial court properly exercised its discretion to award fees as an equitable sanction for respondents’ litigation misconduct. View "Copper Creek (Marysville) Homeowners Ass'n v. Kurtz" on Justia Law

The bankruptcy court, administering a complex bankruptcy, dismissed NexPoint Advisors, LP’s objection to professional fees paid to myriad organizations. NexPoint appealed to the district court, sitting as an appellate court. The district court dismissed for lack of standing to appeal. NexPoint appealed.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court held that NexPoint failed to establish that the adversary proceeding “directly, adversely, and financially impacts” it beyond anything other than mere speculation. Further, the court held that: Lexmark does not expressly reach prudential concerns in bankruptcy appeals and brought no change relevant here. The court wrote by failing to raise the Cajun Electric argument simultaneously, NexPoint waived its right to do so here. Finally, the court wrote that Collins, when read in conjunction with the “party in interest” language from Bankruptcy Code Sections 330 and 1109, still fails to engage the court’s longstanding precedent that appellate standing in bankruptcy actions is afforded only to a “person aggrieved.” View "NexPoint Advisors v. Pachulski Stang" on Justia Law

In this case regarding the "homestead act," Public Acts 1993, No. 93-301, 2 (P.A. 93-301), and involving a certified question in a bankruptcy appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, the Supreme Court held that Public Acts 2021, No. 21-161, 1 (P.A. 21-161) applies in all bankruptcy proceedings filed on or after the effective date of the act to debts that accrued prior to that date.When the legislature enacted the act in 1993 a debtor could protect up to $75,000 of the value of a primary residence from attachment in postjudgment proceedings or bankruptcy, but the act included the following carve-out: the homestead exemption could not be claimed for debts accrued prior to the effective date. In 2021, the legislature amended the act by, among other things, increasing the exemption to $250,000. This time, however, the legislature did not include a special carve-out for a debtor's preexisting debts. At issue was whether the Supreme Court should read such a carve-out into P.A. 21-161. The Supreme Court answered the question in the negative and that P.A. 21-161, 1 was not retractive as applied to the debtor's bankruptcy petition in this case. View "In re Cole" on Justia Law

From 2003 to 2007, Plaintiff took out ten student loans to attend college in Washington state. Defendants National Collegiate Student Loan Trusts (collectively, “the Trusts”) ultimately purchased Plaintiff’s loans. The Trusts appointed Defendant U.S. Bank as their special servicer. The Trusts also hired Defendant Transworld Systems, Inc. (“Transworld”), to collect the defaulted loans, and hired Defendant Patenaude & Felix (“Patenaude”), a law firm specializing in debt collection, to represent them in debt collection actions. Several years after taking out the loans, Plaintiff filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy relief.   The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim, Plaintiff’s action alleging that Defendants’ attempts to collect debts that were discharged in bankruptcy violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Bankruptcy Code. Affirming the dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims that were based on a violation of his bankruptcy discharge order, the panel reiterated that Walls v. Wells Fargo Bank, 276 F.3d 502 (9th Cir. 2002), precludes FDCPA claims and other claims based on violations of Bankruptcy Code Section 524. The panel reversed the district court’s dismissal, as barred by the one-year statute of limitations, of Plaintiff’s remaining FDCPA claim based on the theory that Defendants knowingly brought a meritless post-discharge debt collection lawsuit because they knew they could not prove ownership of Plaintiff’s debts. The panel concluded that Plaintiff sufficiently alleged one post-filing FDCPA violation in the filing of an affidavit that presented a new basis, not contained in the complaint, to show that Defendants owned the debts. View "OSURE BROWN V. TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL" on Justia Law

Appellee won a multi-million-dollar arbitration award (the “Award”) against his former attorney and son-in-law, Appellant. Appellant soon filed for bankruptcy and sought to discharge the amounts awarded against him. Appellee objected under 11 U.S.C. Section 523(a) (“Exceptions to Discharge”) and sought summary judgment, arguing that (i) the Award is entitled to preclusive effect based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel and (ii) the Award found that all the elements of Section 523(a) were met. The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment with respect to the bulk of the Award. The district court affirmed, and Appellant appealed.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that Appellant argued that the court should recognize a fourth requirement that has no basis in our precedent, to the effect that collateral estoppel is inappropriate where an arbitration award contains a “disclaimer” like the one in the Award. The court reasoned that it need not decide whether a “disclaimer” could ever render collateral estoppel inappropriate. The court held merely that this “disclaimer” does not do so. Further, the court wrote that at no place in his 53-page, single-spaced award does the arbitrator provide an “express instruction” to future tribunals not to grant the Award preclusive effect. View "Amberson v. McAllen" on Justia Law

Kapitus purchased receivables from Delloso's company, Greenville Concrete, for $909,775. In 2013, Kapitus sued for breach of contract. Greenville defaulted on a subsequent settlement. Kapitus obtained a state court judgment against Delloso and Greenville for $776,600.25. In 2016, Delloso filed a Chapter 7 voluntary bankruptcy petition in which he listed the $776,600.25 debt and disclosed that his sole employer was “Bari Concrete.” The Bankruptcy Court notified the creditors of the last day to oppose dischargeability; the trustee explained that because this was a “no-asset case,” creditors should not file proofs of claim unless it appeared that assets would be available. Kapitus did not file a proof of claim. None of Delloso’s creditors filed adversary complaints. The Bankruptcy Court granted Delloso’s discharge and, in August 2016, closed the case. In 2021, Kapitus moved to reopen the case, alleging that it learned that Bari used the same addresses previously associated with Greenville, was controlled by Delloso, and appeared to be "a mere continuation of Greenville.”The Bankruptcy Court declined to reopen Delloso’s case under 11 U.S.C. 523(a) or revoke the discharge under section 727(d)(1) as obtained through fraud. The Third Circuit affirmed. Any complaint to assert that the debt was not dischargeable was untimely and the time could not be extended by equitable tolling. Even if Kapitus’s allegations were true, it could obtain appropriate and sufficient relief by suing Delloso and Bari in state court, which Kapitus had already done. View "In re: Delloso" on Justia Law

Baker Sales, Inc. (“BSI”) obtained two loans from Newtek Small Business Finance, Inc. (“Newtek”) which were secured by mortgages on BSI’s commercial property. Robert and Elsa Baker (collectively “the Bakers”) executed agreements unconditionally guaranteeing payment of all amounts owed on the loans. These agreements were secured by conventional mortgages on the Bakers’ home. BSI filed for bankruptcy approximately two years later. Newtek filed a proof of claim in the bankruptcy proceeding for the total amount of the outstanding balance of the loans. The bankruptcy court granted Newtek’s motion to lift the automatic bankruptcy stay. Newtek then filed a petition for executory process in state court against BSI and the Bakers requesting seizure and sale of BSI’s commercial property without the benefit of appraisal. Newtek purchased the seized property at a sheriff’s sale; the bankruptcy case was subsequently closed. Newtek filed the suit at issue here, seeking to foreclose on the Bakers’ home. The trial court issued a judgment preliminarily enjoining the sale of the Bakers’ home and converted the proceeding from executory to ordinary. The Bakers filed a petition seeking a declaration under the Louisiana Deficiency Judgment Act (“LDJA”) that as the underlying debt was extinguished, Newtek could no longer pursue them as sureties. The Louisiana Supreme Court granted certiorari review to determine whether a creditor’s recovery in a deficiency judgment action was barred against a surety when a creditor forecloses on property through a judicial sale without appraisal. Harmonizing the LDJA with the law of suretyship, the Supreme Court agreed with the court of appeal that such recovery was barred. View "Newtek Small Business Finance, LLC v. Baker" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from a converted Chapter 7 bankruptcy filed in 2017. In 2014, the debtor, All Resorts Group, Inc., paid personal tax debts of two of its principals totaling $145,138.78 to the Internal Revenue Service. Plaintiff, the United States Trustee, brought an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court against the United States pursuant to Code 11 U.S.C. § 544(b)(1) to avoid these transfers. The “applicable law” on which the Trustee relied was now-former § 25-6-6(1) of Utah’s Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (amended 2017) as part of Utah’s Uniform Voidable Transactions Act. The United States (Government) did not contest the substantive elements required for the actual creditor (in this case, an individual with an employment discrimination claim against the debtor) to establish a voidable transfer under § 25-6-6(1). The Government acknowledged: (1) the debtor had made the transfers; (2) an actual creditor had an unsecured claim against the debtor arising before the transfers; (3) the debtor did not receive a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfers; and (4) the debtor was insolvent at the time of the transfers. The Government further acknowledged that the sovereign immunity waiver contained in 11 U.S.C. § 106(a)(1) made it amenable to the Trustee’s § 544(b)(1) action. The Government contested § 544(b)(1)’s “actual creditor requirement,” arguing the actual creditor could not avoid the debtor’s tax payments made on behalf of its principals to the IRS because sovereign immunity would bar such creditor’s action against the Government outside of bankruptcy. According to the Trustee, the waiver contained in Code § 106(a) abrogated sovereign immunity not only as to his § 544(b)(1) adversary proceeding against the Government, but also as to the underlying Utah state law cause of action he invoked under subsection (b)(1) to avoid the transfers. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the bankruptcy court ruled in favor of the Trustee and avoided the transfers. The Government appealed. Finding no reversible error in the bankruptcy court's judgment, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "Miller v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2008, Debtors Mosaic Management Group, Inc., Mosaic Alternative Assets, Ltd., and Paladin Settlements, Inc. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the Southern District of Florida, a “UST district” in which the U.S. Trustee program operates. In June 2017, the bankruptcy court confirmed a joint Chapter 11 plan, under which most of the Debtors’ assets were transferred to an Investment Trust managed by an Investment Trustee. The issue before the court is the appropriate remedy for the constitutional violation the Supreme Court found in Siegel. The Debtors in this case—being debtors in a U.S. Trustee district—have been required to pay higher fees than a comparable debtor in one of the six BA districts in Alabama or North Carolina.   The Eleventh Circuit vacated and remanded. The court concluded that Reich, Newsweek, Bennett, McKesson, and the long line of similar state tax cases are closely analogous to the instant case and provide strong precedent supporting the refund remedy urged upon us by the Debtors. Accordingly, the court held that the appropriate remedy in this case for the constitutional violation identified in Siegel is the refunds that the Debtors in this case seek. View "United States Trustee Region 21 v. Bast Amron LLP" on Justia Law