Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

Debtor appealed an order of the Bankruptcy Court directing that a third party receive a portion of a check made payable jointly to the third party and debtor for rent of debtor's property. At issue was whether the third party had a right to funds for rent of debtor's property when the rent check was made payable jointly to debtor and the third party. The court held that the third party had an interest in the funds by virtue of a contract between the parties and, therefore, the third party was entitled to the portions of the funds that the bankruptcy court required debtor to remit to him. View "Potts v. Guilford" on Justia Law

This appeal grew out of an adversary proceeding in debtor's Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings. The bankruptcy trustee filed a complaint against debtor and her husband, claiming that certain money and property belonged to debtor's bankruptcy estate. The trustee sought turnover to the bankruptcy estate of certain proceedings from the sale of the couple's homestead, a rental property held in the husband's name, and income earned from the rental property. The bankruptcy court rejected all of the trustee's claims and the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed. The court concluded that the proceeds of the homestead sale belonged to debtor's bankruptcy estate but that the rental property held in the husband's name and the income did not. Accordingly, the court reversed in part and affirmed in part. View "In re: Myrna Jacobson" on Justia Law

While engaged in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy action, the debtor brought claims against government officials and a police officer, seeking damages for an allegedly illegal search of his property. He did not amend his bankruptcy schedules, as required, to disclose the existence of his claims as newly acquired assets prior to obtaining a discharge from bankruptcy. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the government defendants, on the basis of judicial estoppel. Although failure to disclose his claims did not give debtor an unfair advantage in the civil proceeding, he had successfully adopted a position in the bankruptcy proceeding inconsistent with the position he took in the damages claim. The First Circuit affirmed. To allow debtor to rely on a belated report of the claims, which he had repeatedly denied, "would neither serve the equities of this case nor create the proper incentive for future debtors to disclose assets in a bankruptcy proceeding completely and accurately."View "Guay v. Burack" on Justia Law

Defendant attempted to murder his ex-wife by beating her with a baseball bat, sealing her in a garbage can filled with snow, and leaving her in an unheated storage facility. He was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. The victim suffered severe injuries that resulted in her suffering a miscarriage and the amputation of all her toes. A Wisconsin state court awarded her $3.4 million for battery, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and her husband and daughters $300,000 for loss of consortium. Defendant filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7. The bankruptcy judge ruled that his debts were nondischargeable as debts "for willful and malicious injury," 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(6). The district court affirmed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that the purpose of bankruptcy law is to provide a fresh start for the honest, but unfortunate, debtor.View "Larsen v. Nicolai" on Justia Law

In 2009, Debtor filed a chapter 13 petition that was dismissed for failure to file a plan or schedules. Two months later, she filed a pro se chapter 7 petition which was dismissed for failure to produce proper documentation. She soon filed another pro se petition, under chapter 11. Debtor is the owner of 10 parcels of real estate from which she earns $5,340.00 per month in rental income, although she asserts that most of the properties are currently vacant. One of her creditors asserted, and the court agreed, that she was using bankruptcy stays to prevent foreclosure and live rent free. In dismissing the petition the court ordered that: "Debtor, or anyone in contractual privity with the Debtor or anyone having or purporting to have a possessory interest in the real property located at… is permanently barred from ever listing said Property or the debt owed to Creditor in a future bankruptcy petition," 11 U.S.C. 105; 362(d)(4). The Sixth Circuit affirmed dismissal with prejudice for 180 days and the order granting in rem relief against the specific property, insofar as it applies to Debtor and anyone in contractual privity with the Debtor. View "In re: Lee" on Justia Law

This case required the court to address the scope of federal bankruptcy jurisdiction over suits against non-debtor third parties, as well as the scope of a stay issued pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 524(g)(4). Pfizer and Quigley appealed from a judgment in the district court reversing the Clarifying Order of the bankruptcy court and holding that the Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos (Angelos) could bring suit against Pfizer for claims based on "apparent manufacturer" liability under Pennsylvania law. The court determined that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal; that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to issue the Clarifying Order; and that the Clarifying Order did not bar Angelos from bringing the suits in question against Pfizer. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "In re: Quigley Company, Inc." on Justia Law

Debtors appealed from the Bankruptcy Court's Order Granting the Trustee's Motion for Approval of Compromise or Settlement of Controversy, relating to claims that they asserted against the Bank for lender liability and discrimination. Debtors also requested oral argument on appeal. The source of the dispute between the parties was a loan secured by debtors' property, which consisted of their residence and an adjacent commercial lot. The court held that the settlement proposed by the Trustee was within the range of reasonable compromises and the Bankruptcy Court did not err in approving it. The court also held that the facts and legal arguments were adequately represented in the briefs and record and that the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument. View "Cockhren, et al. v. MidWest One Bank, et al." on Justia Law

Debtor appealed the BAP's decision affirming a bankruptcy court order that her homestead was not exempt from the Bank's antecedent debts. The court agreed with the bankruptcy court and the BAP that the plain language of section 561.20 of the Iowa Code limited the "new homestead" exemption to cases where "a new homestead has been acquired with the proceeds of the old." Therefore, the court rejected debtor's contention that there was a conflict in the published bankruptcy court decisions and held that debtor was properly denied a new homestead exemption. The court also held that the bankruptcy court did not err in concluding that the homestead was not exempt from the Bank's antecedent debts under section 561.21(A) of the Iowa Code as construed by the Supreme Court of Iowa and in lifting the automatic stay in bankruptcy as to that property. Accordingly, the court affirmed the decision. View "Walters v. Bank of the West" on Justia Law

Northwest and the Pilots Association filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that their post-bankruptcy retirement benefit plan (MP3) complied with the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001-1461. Appellants (older Pilots) counterclaimed arguing that the MP3 retirement benefit plan violated ERISA, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. 621-634, and several state laws prohibiting age discrimination. Under the MP3, the contributions of all of the pilots were based on their protected final average earnings, which could not be calculated without the use of age. However, that did not mean that the older Pilots' contributions have been reduced because of their age. There were several factors in the MP3 that could reduce an older pilots' projected final average earnings. While promotions and pay increases were correlated with age, they were analytically distinct and therefore not reductions in contributions because of age. Service ration and the frozen Pension Plan offset also both contributed to potential differences in contribution. Finally, the court rejected older Pilots' argument that the district court improperly disregarded the declaration of their expert witness. Therefore, the court held that the MP3 did not reduce the older Pilots' benefits because of age and therefore affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Northwest Airlines, Inc., et al. v. Phillips, et al." on Justia Law

This was an appeal by Triology from an order of the bankruptcy court holding that certain funds held by Trilogy constituted sale proceeds which were subject to the mechanic liens of J.E. Dunn. The court held that the bankruptcy court's decision was not based on clearly erroneous factual findings or erroneous legal conclusion and affirmed the judgment. View "Trilogy Development Co. v. J.E. Dunn Construction Co., et al." on Justia Law