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

Leigh Murphy d/b/a Murphy Cattle Co. appealed the bankruptcy court's orders holding that Sweetwater's lien in certain cattle was superior to Murphy's rights as an unpaid seller of the cattle. The panel concluded that the result in this case would be the same under either Colorado or Nebraska law and thus relied on cases from both states interpreting the relevant provisions of the UCC; Murphy signed a document transferring ownership of the cattle to Debtor Leonard, such that others could reasonably rely on Leonard's claim of ownership; Moffat County State Bank v. Producers Livestock Marketing Assoc. does not stand for the proposition that Article 2 is inapplicable here as to the passage of title, and the bankruptcy court did not err in turning to Article 2 of the UCC; pursuant to section 2-401, title passed to Leonard at the moment the cattle were shipped; Murphy's right to have title re-vest in him when the checks were dishonored was limited to his reclamation rights; under section 2-403, when Leonard received title from Murphy at the time of shipping, he received all the title Murphy had, as well as the power to transfer good title to a good faith purchaser for value (Sweetwater in this case); the panel denied Sweetwater's request to strike Murphy's electronic record filing; and the panel denied Sweetwater's oral request for sanctions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Sweetwater Cattle Co. v. Murphy" on Justia Law

Debtor challenges the district court's affirmance of the dismissal of its small business Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The court explained that the bankruptcy court's feasibility concerns would have existed even had debtor succeeded on its impairment-of-collateral argument. Even giving debtor the benefit of the impairment-of-collateral issue, the court found a sufficient basis in the record to defer to the bankruptcy court's "broad discretion" in determining whether a Chapter 11 case should be dismissed. In this case, the bankruptcy court noted primarily the issue of feasibility, that debtor's case had been pending for three years, and its failure to present a confirmable plan imposed substantial and continuing losses on its creditors. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Diwan, LLC v. Maha-Vishnu Corp." on Justia Law

The Department challenges the bankruptcy court's determination that debtor's student loans are dischargeable based on undue hardship under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(8). The bankruptcy appellate panel concluded that there is no error in the bankruptcy court's determination where the evidence supports the bankruptcy court's conclusion that debtor's income has been consistent and is unlikely to improve in the future; debtor's monthly expenses are reasonable, necessary, modest and commensurate with her income; and debtor's emotional burden related to the student loan obligations, the continued accrual of interest on the loans, the negative credit effect of the loans, and the potential tax obligation when the repayment plan expires were in error also weigh in favor of discharging the student loans for undue hardship. Accordingly, the panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's judgment. View "Fern v. FedLoan Servicing" on Justia Law

Debtors challenge the bankruptcy court's order and decision sustaining the trustee's objection to debtors' claimed homestead exemption. 11 U.S.C. 522(o) requires the bankruptcy court to determine the extent to which the improvements debtors made to their homestead increased the value of debtors' interest in their homestead. The panel concluded that the bankruptcy court failed to do so in this case, and the panel remanded for the bankruptcy court to make this determination. View "Crabtree v. McDermott" on Justia Law

The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment for the Department of Labor and declared that debtor's debt is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(4). Debtor appeals. The Department had obtained a pre-bankruptcy judgment against debtor in district court. The district court found that, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001 et seq., that debtor breached his fiduciary duty when the company of which he was CEO failed to remit funds withheld from its employees' paychecks for their health insurance plan. The BAP concluded that a trust res was created in this case because the trust was created when the employer withholds wages for payments to a plan providing benefits to employees; debtor had fiduciary responsibilities with respect to funds that had been withheld from wages for payment to HealthPartners; and debtor committed defalcation when he knowingly failed to remit employee contributions and instead knowingly used those funds to pay for other corporate expenses. Accordingly, the BAP affirmed the judgment. View "U.S. Department of Labor v. Harris" on Justia Law

After the bankruptcy court held that a Minnesota property tax refund under Minn. Stat. Ann. 290A.04 is not exempt under Section 550.37 (Subd. 14) of the Minnesota statutes as “government assistance based on need,” following this panel’s decision in Manty v. Johnson, debtor appealed. The BAP rejected debtor's claim that Johnson was implicitly overruled by the Eighth Circuit's subsequent opinion in In re Hardy. The BAP concluded that Hardy in no way alters the ruling in Johnson. The BAP explained that the amendments to the federal Additional Child Tax Credit statute discussed in Hardy have no bearing on the Minnesota property tax refund statute at issue here and in Johnson. Accordingly, the BAP affirmed the judgment. View "Hanson v. Seaver" on Justia Law

Debtor appealed from the bankruptcy court's order denying his motion to reinstate his dismissed Chapter 13 bankruptcy case and an order denying his motion to reconsider that order. The panel concluded that the bankruptcy court did not clearly err in concluding that debtor had no meritorious defense to the UST’s motion to dismiss. Therefore, the panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's order denying debtor's motion to reinstate the dismissed case and denying his motion to reconsider. View "Paulson v. McDermott" on Justia Law

Debtor appealed the bankruptcy court's order denying his third motion to reconsider the order dismissing his chapter 7 case. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) concluded that, although debtor argues in his brief that the dismissal order was erroneous, he failed to file a timely notice of appeal from that order and the panel lacked jurisdiction to review it. The BAP also concluded that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion when it denied his third motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, the BAP affirmed the judgment. View "Lee v. Edwards" on Justia Law

Debtor filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and claimed a $15,000 exemption in a homestead he owned as a tenant in the entirety with his wife. The bankruptcy court granted debtor's motion to avoid CRP's judicial lien and the BAP affirmed. CRP appealed. The court vacated and remanded to the bankruptcy court for it to determine whether CRP has a judicial lien on the property that is either enforceable or unenforceable. View "CRP Holdings v. O'Sullivan" on Justia Law

Debtors argue that the bankruptcy court erred in not awarding them all the attorney fees they incurred in their adversary proceeding against Champion for its violation of the discharge injunction. Debtors also argue that the bankruptcy court erred in not awarding them punitive damages for Champion's violation of the discharge injunction. The BAP concluded that both arguments failed for the same reason. In this case, the record on appeal affords the panel no basis for evaluating their merits. Therefore, the BAP is unable to review the bankruptcy court's findings of fact or its conclusions of law, and cannot say, without the transcript, that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in reaching the decision it did. Accordingly, the BAP affirmed the judgment. View "Huonder v. Champion Milking Systems" on Justia Law