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

Plaintiff filed suit against Midland under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692e, alleging that Midland violated the FDCPA by filing a proof of claim on a time-barred debt. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim. The court declined to extend the FDCPA to time-barred proofs of claim, concluding that an accurate and complete proof of claim on a time-barred debt is not false, deceptive, misleading, unfair, or unconscionable under the FDCPA. The court explained that the bankruptcy code provides for a claims resolution process and these protections against harassment and deception satisfy the relevant concerns of the FDCPA. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "Nelson v. Midland Credit Mgmt." on Justia Law

Attorney James Robinson, Attorney Elbert Walton, and Critique Services, LLC appealed the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's judgment on debtor's motion to disgorge attorney's fees. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in determining that, assuming that debtor's claim was property of her Chapter 7 bankruptcy estate, the Trustee abandoned the property. The court also concluded that Appellant's motion to recuse was untimely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 455(a); even if the motions to recuse were timely, Appellants have not demonstrated that Judge Rendlen’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned; the bankruptcy court did not err in docketing debtor's pro se complaint as a motion to disgorge attorney's fees; Critique Services had been properly served and discovery requests were properly directed to it; debtor's claim is not moot; because settlement in this case was never completed, the bankruptcy court retained authority to order debtor to accept discovery and to sanction Appellants for failing to comply with the court’s orders; and Appellants were not entitled to benefit from the doctrine of unclean hands. Finally, the court concluded that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion by imposing significant sanctions on Appellants, including civil penalties and suspension. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Critique Services, LLC v. Steward" on Justia Law

Claimants appealed from the bankruptcy court's orders where the bankruptcy court found the division in contempt and imposed sanctions against the division for willful violation of the discharge injunction in attempting to collect on a support debt after the debtors obtained a discharge. The BAP concluded that this case does not fall within the domestic relations exception to federal jurisdiction and thus the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to determine the division’s claim; the BAP declined to consider the comity issue because it was raised for the first time on appeal; and the bankruptcy court erred in holding the division in contempt for willful violation of the discharge injunction because the discharge injunction does not apply to domestic support obligations under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(5) and 1328(a). Accordingly, the BAP reversed the judgment. View "Missouri v. Spencer" on Justia Law

The trustee for PCI and eight associated special-purpose entities (SPEs) filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy petitions in the aftermath of Thomas Petters' Ponzi scheme. The bankruptcy court consolidated the bankruptcy estates of PCI and the SPEs “for all purposes substantive and administrative.” Lenders to PCI and the SPEs appealed. The district court dismissed, holding the Lenders did not have standing to appeal the consolidation order because they were not “persons aggrieved.” The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to estop the trustee from asserting that the Lenders are not persons aggrieved; having held that the persons aggrieved doctrine survives the 1978 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code, the court declined to reconsider the doctrine; and the district court did not err in dismissing the Lenders under the persons aggrieved doctrine. In this case, the Lenders’ interests here are not central to the bankruptcy process, and allowing them to appeal the bankruptcy court’s order would completely undermine the rationale behind the standard and bring bankruptcy proceedings to a grinding halt. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Opportunity Finance, LLC v. Kelley" on Justia Law

Debtors Mathew and Marilynn held title to real property as joint tenants with Marilynn's parents. After debtors filed for bankruptcy, and Marilynn's parents died, the Trustee notified debtors that he intended to sell the real estate and a pickup truck Marilynn and her father owned as joint tenants. The Trustee maintained that the right of survivorship made the bankruptcy estate the sole owner. The court concluded that the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel did not err in affirming the sale of the real property and pickup because the joint tenancies remained intact through creation of the bankruptcy estate and therefore the bankruptcy estate included the joint tenancies. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Peet v. Checkett" on Justia Law

WEB2B filed for bankruptcy and turned over its balances to the Chapter 7 trustee. RAC filed suit claiming the balances of an express trust, resulting trust, or constructive trust. WEB2B provided automated clearinghouse and electronic-check conversion services to RAC. The bankruptcy court dismissed RAC's claims and granted summary judgment to the trustee. The court affirmed the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's decision, concluding that the parties' processing agreement had no requirement to segregate RAC funds, nor a definite, unequivocal, explicit declaration of trust. Therefore, there was no express trust in this case. The district court did not err in concluding that the undisputed facts here do not show with reasonable certainty or beyond a reasonable doubt that a resulting trust exists. Finally, the district court properly concluded that RAC had identified no clear and convincing evidence of conversion sufficient to justify imposing a constructive trust on the remaining funds. View "Rent-A-Center East, Inc. v. Leonard" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants, alleging employment discrimination and retaliation in violation of federal laws. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. The court agreed with the district court that plaintiff's failure to disclose her claims in her Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings judicially estopped her from pursuing them. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Van Horn v. Martin" on Justia Law

Debtors appealed the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's (BAP) holding that Starion Financial is entitled to recover the attorney's fees it incurred while collecting on its secured debt in the course of debtors' proceedings. The BAP remanded to the bankruptcy court. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because resolution of the timeliness and reasonableness of the fee application affect the merits of the underlying dispute over the fee request and thus the bankruptcy court on remand is left with more than a "purely mechanical or ministerial task." View "Starion Fin. v. McCormick" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against his employer, Bob Evans, alleging employment discrimination in violation of federal and Missouri law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Bob Evans. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying judicial estoppel to bar plaintiff's claims where, pursuant to the New Hampshire v. Maine factors, plaintiff took inconsistent positions between his bankruptcy case and this case; the bankruptcy court, by discharging plaintiff's unsecured debts, adopted the position that his discrimination claims did not exist; and plaintiff could have derived an unfair advantage in the bankruptcy proceedings by concealing his claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Jones v. Bob Evans Farms, Inc." on Justia Law

O&S challenged the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's (BAP) dismissal of its appeal after the bankruptcy court confirmed a reorganization plan proposed by O&S. The BAP concluded that O&S did not have standing to challenge the bankruptcy court’s order confirming its proposed plan. The court found that, in light of the strong policy favoring finality in bankruptcy proceedings, the language in the confirmed plan was not sufficient to reserve O&S’s right to appeal from the plan confirmation or to place the bankruptcy court and creditors on notice that O&S would seek such relief. Accordingly, the court concluded that the BAP correctly held that O&S failed to carry its burden to demonstrate standing. The court affirmed the judgment. View "O&S Trucking, Inc. v. Mercedes Benz Fin. Serv." on Justia Law