Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

Long and the Piercys operated a Tennessee quarry. Their agreement was silent as to whether their division of “profit” would be based on gross profit after payment of a royalty or net profit after payment of the royalty plus other costs. Based on the division of labor and respective contributions, Long believed that the four individuals should receive equal shares of the gross profit. When Long complained, the Piercys padlocked him off the property and threatened to call the sheriff, then stopped paying Long. A state court chancellor found that Long was entitled to the difference between what the Piercys had paid him and what Long should have received ($151,670.87) but rejected Long’s claim for lost anticipated profits, declining to find that the Piercys breached the partnership agreement but assessing costs against the Piercys.The Piercys sought Chapter 7 bankruptcy relief. Long initiated adversary proceedings, seeking a declaration that the judgment was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(4) for debts incurred by embezzlement, or through defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity. The Sixth Circuit reversed the bankruptcy court and district court. Long’s state-court judgment may be declared nondischargeable if Long can produce evidence of wrongful intent. The state-court judgment is unclear as to the basis for its relief and does not preclude a finding of fraud. Under the Tennessee Revised Uniform Partnership Act, partners owe each other fiduciary duties. View "Long v. Piercy" on Justia Law

In the Bankruptcy Court, Harang sought a declaration that his tax debts were dischargeable, notwithstanding 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(1). The IRS answered the complaint, served discovery requests, moved to compel answers, and eventually sought discovery sanctions, which the Bankruptcy Court imposed, stating that “[f]or all purposes in this case ... the Court will presume ... that the Debtor had sufficient income to pay his tax liabilities ... but consciously chose not to do so.” Later, after holding that a witness “refused to appear for his deposition at the direction of” Harang, the Court entered a second sanctions order with additional factual findings. The Court scheduled the trial for February 16, 2021; on January 21, Harang moved to dismiss the adversary proceeding under Rule 41.The Bankruptcy Court entered an Order of Dismissal with Prejudice, stating: Given the protracted and tortious [sic] history of this case, the court finds it proper to condition the dismissal ... upon the inclusion of its prior factual findings ...[and] that the dismissal should be with prejudice because that was the request of the Plaintiff ... the United States was ready to proceed to trial. The Sixth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed. A bankruptcy court has the duty and the discretion to address the misbehavior of parties appearing before it. Rule 41(a)(2) creates needed latitude for courts to exercise that discretion. The Bankruptcy Court did not abuse its discretion by restating earlier, unchallenged factual findings. View "In re Jack Warren Harang" on Justia Law

In 2017, a bankruptcy court discharged Persinger’s debts, under 11 U.S.C. 727. A few months later, Southwest Credit began collection efforts on a pre‐petition debt of Persinger’s, including by acquiring a type of credit information called her “propensity‐to‐pay score.” Alleging that this information had been secured without a permissible purpose, Persinger sued Southwest under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. 1681.The district court granted Southwest summary judgment, holding that Southwest’s compliance procedures were reasonable and met FCRA’s requirements. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, first holding that Persinger has standing to sue. Southwest invaded her privacy when it reviewed her credit information but no reasonable juror could conclude that the inquiry into Persinger’s propensity‐to‐pay score resulted in actual damages. If a plaintiff cannot prove actual damages, she may still recover statutory or punitive damages by proving that the defendant willfully violated FCRA. Viewed as a whole, Southwest’s procedures for handling bankruptcy notifications and for ordering bankruptcy scrubs from LexisNexis were reasonable compliance efforts, not willful violations of the FCRA. At the time Southwest ordered the credit score, it was unaware that the debt at issue had been discharged. View "Persinger v. Southwest Credit Systems, L.P." on Justia Law

In 2017, the Delaware Court of Chancery held that Plaintiff Robert Lenois had pled with particularity that the controlling stockholder of Erin Energy Corporation (“Erin” or the “Company”) had acted in bad faith. It further held that Lenois had pled either “very serious claims of bad faith” or “a duty of care claim” against the remainder of Erin’s board in connection with two integrated transactions. In those transactions, the controller allegedly obtained an unfair windfall by selling certain Nigerian oil assets to Erin. The trial court dismissed the derivative claims on standing grounds (i.e., holding that demand was not excused). Lenois appealed that decision. During the pendency of the appeal, Erin voluntarily filed for bankruptcy. The Chapter 7 Trustee obtained the permission of the Bankruptcy Court to pursue, on a direct basis, the claims that had been asserted in the Lenois action in the Court of Chancery. As a result of the bankruptcy proceedings, which vested the Trustee with control over the claims, the Delaware Supreme Court determined that the sole issue on appeal was moot. The case was remanded to the Court of Chancery to resolve two pending motions — a Rule 60(b) motion and the Trustee’s motion pursuant to Rule 25(c) to be substituted for nominal defendant Erin and then realigned as plaintiff (the “Realignment Motion”). The Court of Chancery denied the Rule 60(b) motion and summarily denied the Rule 25(c) motion. Here, the Supreme Court reversed, holding the Court of Chancery should have granted the Trustee’s Substitution and Realignment Motion. View "Lenois v. Lukman" on Justia Law

Beach, a debtor in possession, sought to avoid Live Oak’s blanket lien on all of its assets. In Florida, a creditor’s financing statement that does not list the debtor’s correct name is “seriously misleading” and ineffective to perfect the creditor’s security interest. Fla. Stat. 679.5061(2). Live Oak asserted that abbreviating “Boulevard” to “Blvd.” did not render the financing statements defective or seriously misleading. Florida Statute 679.5061(3), establishes a safe harbor for defective financing statements. The bankruptcy court granted Live Oak summary judgment.Noting that lower courts, applying Florida law, have reached different conclusions regarding the application of the statutory safe harbor, the Eleventh Circuit certified to the Florida Supreme Court the questions: (1) Is the “search of the records of the filing office under the debtor’s correct name, using the filing office’s standard search logic,” as provided for by Florida Statute 679.5061(3), limited to or otherwise satisfied by the initial page of twenty names displayed to the user of the Registry’s search function? (2) If not, does that search consist of all names in the filing office’s database, which the user can browse to using the command tabs displayed on the initial page? (3) If the search consists of all names in the filing office’s database, are there any limitations on a user’s obligation to review the names and, if so, what factors should courts consider when determining whether a user has satisfied those obligations? View "1944 Beach Boulevard, LLC v. Live Oak Banking Co." on Justia Law

The Davises took out a mortgage on their residence in 2005. After they defaulted on the loan and filed for bankruptcy, Jerome Davis, a licensed attorney who represented himself, received a bankruptcy discharge. The bankruptcy court later held that the discharge did not extend to the debt Davis owed CitiMortgage. Rather than appeal, Davis first attempted to remove CitiMortgage’s foreclosure action to federal court, alleging that CitiMortgage’s efforts to obtain a personal deficiency judgment contravened his bankruptcy discharge. He then filed a separate suit alleging unfair debt collection practices against CitiMortgage. Davis lost in each of those proceedings. CitiMortgage was awarded attorney fees and costs, 28 U.S.C. 1447(c) when the court remanded the foreclosure proceeding for lack of federal question jurisdiction.The Seventh Circuit dismissed Davis’s appeal, stating that it lacked jurisdiction to review the remand order. Davis waived his arguments challenging the attorney fees and costs award. The court upheld the dismissal of Davis’s suit against CitiMortgage; all of Davis’s claims center on his contention that the debt owed CitiMortgage was subject to his 2018 discharge. The court took judicial notice that the bankruptcy court had held the opposite in Davis’s adversary proceeding. View "Davis v. CitiMortgage, Inc." on Justia Law

Dean filed a Chapter 7 voluntary petition. The trustee for the estate did not have sufficient unencumbered funds to retain counsel to pursue claims for the estate. Reticulum, a creditor, agreed to fund the trustee’s litigation in exchange for a share of any of litigation proceeds. The bankruptcy court approved the agreement. The district court affirmed. Dean appealed, contending that the agreement undermined the statutory ranking system for distribution of the estate’s property by allowing Reticulum to move ahead of other creditors.The Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of standing. Bankruptcy standing may be addressed even when it was not raised below. The court employed the “person aggrieved” test, a “more exacting standard than traditional constitutional standing.” The appellant must show that he is “directly, adversely, and financially impacted by” the exact order being appealed as opposed to the proceedings more generally. In a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the debtor-out-of-possession typically has no concrete interest in how the bankruptcy court divides up the estate. A debtor may retain bankruptcy standing by showing that defeat of the order on appeal would affect his bankruptcy discharge. The approval of the litigation funding agreement did not affect whether Dean’s debts will be discharged. View "Dean v. Seidel" on Justia Law

Sienega failed to file required California state income tax returns in the 1990-1992, and 1996 tax years. The IRS made upward adjustments in Sienega’s federal tax liability for those years. For each of the four tax years, Sienega’s counsel faxed to California's Franchise Tax Board (FTB) a cover sheet and IRS Form 4549-A, listing the adjustments to Sienega’s income, the corrected taxable income and tax liability, interest, and penalties. The FTB issued a notice of proposed assessment for each tax year; each stated that the FTB had “no record of receiving [Sienega’s] personal income tax return.” The notices proposed to assess state taxes based upon the federal audit report and specified that if Sienega disagreed with any of the calculations, he would need to submit a formal protest. Sienega did not file any belated tax returns or protests. The assessments became final in 2009. In 2014, Sienega filed a bankruptcy petition. The FTB filed am adversary complaint seeking to have Sienega’s outstanding state tax debts declared nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(1)(B), based on the fact that he had not filed a formal state tax return in any of the relevant years. Sienega contended that he had filed state tax returns by faxing information about the adjustments.The bankruptcy court granted the FTB summary judgment. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel and Ninth Circuit affirmed. The faxes did not constitute a return under the “hanging paragraph” in section 523(a) because the California state law process with which his faxes complied was not “similar” to 26 U.S.C. 6020(a), which authorizes the IRS to prepare a tax return when a taxpayer does not. View "Sienega v. State of California Franchise Tax Board" on Justia Law

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel dismissed debtors' appeal of the bankruptcy court's orders based on lack of standing. In this case, debtors challenged the bankruptcy court's orders (1) granting in part and denying in part the chapter 7 trustee's application to pay her law firm as attorney for the trustee, and (2) denying debtors' motion to remove the trustee, among other findings not at issue here. The court concluded that debtors are not personally aggrieved by the orders and therefore lack standing to appeal them. View "Levitt v. Jacoway" on Justia Law

In 1999, Kristina drugged her sons and put them, and herself, in a running car in a closed garage. Matthew died; Adam and Kristina survived. Kristina was convicted of second-degree murder and remained in prison until 2016. In 1999, Kristina had State Farm automobile and homeowners insurance policies. In 2001, Matthew’s estate, Adam, and their father (the Rotells) sued Kristina for wrongful death and bodily injury.Kristina tendered her defense to State Farm, which filed state court declaratory judgment actions, seeking determinations that her policies did not cover the incident. The Rotells allege that State Farm rejected a settlement offer even though Kristina wished to accept it. The state court then held that the policies did not cover the incident. State Farm withdrew from the wrongful-death lawsuit. The state court entered a default judgment against Kristina; a jury entered a $505 million verdict. Kristina was insolvent, so the Rotells petitioned for involuntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court entered an order subjecting Kristina’s assets (claims against State Farm for bad faith and malpractice) to its control and appointed Carapella as trustee. The verdict is Kristina’s only liability. Carapella sued State Farm in Florida state court. State Farm then sought to intervene, post-judgment, in the wrongful-death action and moved to vacate the judgment, arguing that the Rotells’ fifth amended complaint was untimely and that the default judgment was void.The district court and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of the motion. The Bankruptcy Code’s “automatic stay” provision, 11 U.S.C. 362(a), precluded State Farm’s motion to intervene. View "State Farm Florida Insurance Co. v. Carapella" on Justia Law