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

Debtor appeals the bankruptcy court's order converting his chapter 13 case to chapter 7. The BAP concluded that the bankruptcy court did not err by refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing on the United States Trustee's motion. The BAP also concluded that even if debtor had not waived his challenges, the bankruptcy court's findings are not clearly erroneous. In this case, the bankruptcy court's findings are amply supported by the facts set forth in the United States Trustee's verified motion. The BAP agreed with the bankruptcy court's findings that there was sufficient cause to convert the chapter 13 case to chapter 7. The bankruptcy court found that, inter alia, debtor had exhibited a serious and studied disregard for the orderly process of justice and a relentless willingness to lie; he had intentionally given inconsistent testimony and failed to provide responsive information; he had filed his bankruptcy petition in an attempt to avoid having to disclose financial information; and he failed to disclose assets on bankruptcy schedules. Accordingly, the BAP affirmed the judgment. View "Hansmeier v. McDermott" on Justia Law

The County appealed the bankruptcy court's order and judgment discharging the debt owed to it by Jacob Milan for costs incurred related to his incarceration. The bankruptcy code precludes discharge of a debt for a fine, penalty or forfeiture owing to a governmental unit unless it is pecuniary in nature. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court committed no error in its determination that the Incarceration Costs are subject to discharge under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(7). In this case, the clear intent for the Incarceration Costs is pecuniary in nature. View "County of Dakota v. Milan" on Justia Law

Barbara Wigley appeals the bankruptcy court's order denying confirmation of Robert Wigley's (debtor) second modified Chapter 11 plan. The court held that Barbara does not have standing because her interests are not central to the bankruptcy process and she is not a person aggrieved. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal. To the extent that Barbara has standing to bring this appeal, the court concluded that the bankruptcy court did not err in denying approval of a settlement in debtor's Chapter 11 plan, and the district court did not err in entering the stay relief order. View "Wigley v. Wigley" on Justia Law

Lariat appealed the bankruptcy court's order denying Lariat's request to dismiss the Chapter 11 case of debtor, or to convert the case to Chapter 7, denying confirmation of debtor’s second modified Chapter 11 plan, and establishing deadlines for debtor to file a modified plan and obtain confirmation of it. Lariat also appealed the bankruptcy court's order confirming debtor's fourth modified Chapter 11 plan. Lariat’s main argument is that the bankruptcy court erred in finding that debtor’s Chapter 11 case was filed in good faith. The court found no error with the bankruptcy court’s findings that debtor was in financial distress, and that he filed his Chapter 11 petition to maximize the value of his assets and to obtain the benefits of the Bankruptcy Code. The court rejected Lariat's contentions and affirmed the judgment. View "Lariat Companies, Inc. v. Wigley" on Justia Law

Kip Kaler, as trustee of the debtor's bankruptcy estate, brought suit against Louie Slominski to avoid a land lease that Slominski and the debtor had entered. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) held that the bankruptcy court incorrectly calculated the setoff but affirmed its judgment in all other respects. Despite Slominski's failure to raise his double-recovery argument before the bankruptcy court, the BAP considered it. The court, however, will independently review the bankruptcy court's decision and is not bound by the BAP's decision. The court has discretion to consider a new argument in exceptional circumstances but the court is not convinced to do so on this record. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant the trustee a new trial based on the newly discovered evidence where the newly discovered evidence - consisting primarily of unexecuted lease documents found on a computer not belonging to Slominski - did not undermine its conclusion that Slominski acted in good faith. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the BAP. View "Kaler v. Slominski" on Justia Law

Reynal Caldwell appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of his ex-wife, Theresa Caldwell Lavender, and her attorney Alan E. DeWoskin and his law firm. Caldwell also appeals the denial of his motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to DeWoskin and Lavender based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because Caldwell's claims challenge the actions taken by DeWoskin and Lavender in seeking and executing state contempt orders, rather than the state court orders themselves. The court remanded to the bankruptcy court to determine whether Caldwell’s claims are precluded based on the state court’s determination that the automatic stay did not bar its contempt proceedings. View "Caldwell v. Dewoskin" on Justia Law

The Chapter 7 trustee appeals from the bankruptcy court’s judgment and order in favor of Sunset Cove on issues of turnover and preference. The bankruptcy appellate panel (BAP) concluded that the posting of the execution application and order on the boat slip at issue was sufficient as a notice of levy and created a valid lien on the boat slip under Missouri law. The sheriff’s failure to give required notice to the debtor did not invalidate the levy or the lien. In this case, the trustee did not present to the bankruptcy court any evidence of prejudice to the debtor or the estate as a result of the lack of notice. Accordingly, the BAP affirmed the bankruptcy court's judgment. View "Rouse v. Sunset Cove Condo." on Justia Law

Blake Roussel and LuAnne Deere formed Clear Sky, LLC d/b/a Exit First Choice Realty - an Exit Realty brokerage franchise - in Conway, Arkansas. Deere and Clear Sky subsequently filed suit against Roussel for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, breach of contract, and violations of Arkansas law. A jury found in favor of plaintiffs and awarded plaintiffs money judgments. Roussel then filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, and Clear Sky and Deere filed an adversary proceeding against Roussel, requesting that the bankruptcy court declare the entire state court judgment nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(4) and 523(a)(6). The court concluded that the district court did not err in concluding that the Judgment Debt is nondischargeable under section 523(a)(6) where the facts show that Roussel acted willfully and he knew that consequences were certain, or substantially certain, to result from his conduct. The court also concluded that apportionment is inappropriate here because Deere’s breach-of contract-claim is deeply intertwined with the breach-of-fiduciary-duties claim by Deere and Clear Sky. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Roussel v. Clear Sky Properties, LLC" on Justia Law

Debtor appealed the bankruptcy court's order denying her request to discharge her student loan for undue hardship pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(8). The BAP concluded that, under the totality of the circumstances, the record demonstrates that debtor has sufficient income to make the $42 student loan payment and the bankruptcy court did not clearly err in so finding. The BAP also considered other relevant facts and circumstances, concluding that debtor failed to prove that she lacks the present ability to make payments on her student loans and her claim of undue hardship must fail. Accordingly, the BAP affirmed the judgment. View "Hurst v. Southern Arkansas Univ." on Justia Law

Civic Partners appealed the bankruptcy court's order dismissing its chapter 11 bankruptcy case. Northwest Bank holds a mortgage against the Promenade and an assignment of rents to secure a promissory note executed by Civic Partners. The City also holds a mortgage against the Promenade to secure a promissory note executed by Civic Partners. Main Street leases and occupies the majority of the space in the Promenade. The BAP concluded that the original lease, not the amended lease, controls Civic Partners' relationship with Main Street. In keeping with its earlier rulings, the bankruptcy court did not consider the possibility that Civic Partners might be able to propose a confirmable plan predicated on the original lease. This is a relevant factor that should be given significant weight in determining whether to dismiss Civic Partners' chapter 11 case. Accordingly, the BAP reversed the bankruptcy court's order dismissing Civic Partners' chapter 11 bankruptcy case and remanded for further proceedings. View "Civic Partners Sioux City, LLC v. Main Street Theatres" on Justia Law