Justia U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's conclusion that DPG's claim against debtor was not nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(6). The panel held that the bankruptcy court did not clearly err by determining that DPG had failed to establish the essential elements of its claims by a preponderance of the evidence. In this case, no evidence established that filing of the mechanic's lien at issue was certain or almost certain to cause harm to DPG, and therefore malicious or willful under section 523(a)(6). View "Dering Pierson Group, LLC v. Kantos" on Justia Law

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's determination that debtor failed to meet her burden of proof to establish an undue hardship pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(8) to discharge her student loans. The panel held that the bankruptcy court did not err in dividing her federal tax refund by each month in the year and including it as monthly income; based upon the evidence of her age, health, skill sets and abilities, debtor failed to meet her burden to demonstrate that her future employment opportunities will not result in higher wages and full time employment; and the bankruptcy court's finding that debtor had sufficient income in excess of her expenses to make modest monthly payments to her lenders was amply supported by the evidence. View "Piccinino v. U.S. Department of Education" on Justia Law

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's order remanding an adversary proceeding brought against debtor by the Law Firm. The panel held that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by committing a clear error of judgment in weighing the listed criteria. In this case, the bankruptcy court's analysis demonstrated its exercising jurisdiction would not resolve any bankruptcy issue or serve any bankruptcy purpose that was not at least equally well-served by remanding the matter to the state court. The court rejected debtor's arguments to the contrary and affirmed. View "Zahn Law Firm, P.A. v. Baker" on Justia Law

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's order holding that CRP holds a judicial lien against the real property of debtor and avoiding that lien under Bankruptcy Code 522(f)(1). The panel held that CRP's recording of its judgment fastened an existing, but presently unenforceable lien on the property. Furthermore, the fact that an unenforceable lien exists was buttressed by CRP's belief that upon the death of debtor's wife, it will have an enforceable lien that will survive the bankruptcy. View "CRP Holdings v. O'Sullivan" on Justia Law

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's judgment denying debtor a discharge of his debts. The panel held that the bankruptcy court's finding that debtor failed to make timely installment payments was based on his procrastination, rather than the inclement weather, was not clearly erroneous; debtor's argument under Article 2 of Iowa's uniform commercial code failed because the parties' agreement was not subject to it; even if the parties' agreement were subject to Article 2, the settlement agreement's default provision was not a liquidated damages clause; and the panel rejected debtor's remaining issues that were not raised before the bankruptcy court. View "Charles Gabus Motors, Inc. v. Tirrell" on Justia Law

After debtors filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, MDSS filed a proof of claim for an unsecured domestic support obligation (DSO) to pay spousal and child support arrears to one of the debtor's prior spouses. MDSS then filed an amended proof of claim in a higher amount and debtors objected. The Eighth Circuit held that the BAP correctly ruled that the disallowed portion of MDSS's DSO claim was not subject to the discharge injunction imposed when the bankruptcy court granted debtors a discharge. The court explained that that ruling eliminated the basis for the bankruptcy court's sanctions order. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to address the bankruptcy court's contempt order sanctions. Finally, the court declined to render an advisory opinion on the additional issues raised in MDSS's cross-appeal. View "Missouri v. Spencer" on Justia Law

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's order granting defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint. The panel held that the bankruptcy court was correct in concluding it had "arising in" jurisdiction; the bankruptcy court had, at minimum, "related to" jurisdiction; and plaintiffs have consented to the authority of the bankruptcy court. The panel also held that the bankruptcy court had continuing jurisdiction notwithstanding the closing of the case; plaintiffs' complaint was barred by res judicata; and the bankruptcy court did not err in finding the shareholders standing rule prevented plaintiffs from asserting the claims. View "Sears v. Sears" on Justia Law

A case becomes moot when the court can no longer grant any effectual relief to a prevailing party due to a change in circumstances. The Eighth Circuit dismissed as moot James Gretter's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his appeal from a bankruptcy court decision denying debtors' motion to assume and assign certain car-dealership agreements. The court held that the case was moot in the ordinary sense because no court, in reversing the bankruptcy court's order denying the motions to assume and assign, would order the sale of Edwards Auto Plaza to proceed. View "Gretter v. Gretter Autoland, Inc." on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed an order denying a discharge on the grounds that debtor concealed his property in interest in a fishing boat and trailer, and made a false oath about the boat. The court rejected debtor's several procedural objections to the bankruptcy court's order denying the discharge and held that the bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding the requisite intent. Therefore, the bankruptcy court properly denied the discharge under 8 U.S.C. 727(a)(2). The court need not address the bankruptcy court's alternative determination. View "Sears v. Sears" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of several creditors in this Chapter 11 debtor-in-possession case. The court held that the judgment allowed proofs of claim totaling over $5.2 million and there was no merit to debtor's several objections. In this case, the sale agreement was not executory; none of debtor's contractual defenses have merit because all of the challenged conduct occurred after debtor filed for bankruptcy; and the court rejected debtor's procedural arguments. View "Sears v. Sears" on Justia Law