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

The Creditor appealed from the bankruptcy court's denial of its motion for relief from the automatic stay in the Chapter 13 bankruptcy case of debtors. At issue was whether the bankruptcy court abused its discretion when it denied the Creditor's motion for relief from the stay. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion by denying the Creditor's request to stay relief in light of the debtors' failure to comply with their obligations under their plan (and therefore, the relevant loan documents), by being significantly behind in their payment to the Creditor. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Borm, et al." on Justia Law

LGI's bankruptcy trustee filed suit to recover payments to SDGE and SCE that LGI made for its clients, Buffets and Wendy's restaurants, as avoidable preferences under section 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. 547(b). SDGE and SCE asserted the subsequent new value exception to preference liability pursuant to section 547(c)(4). The court held that, in three-party relationships where the debtor's preferential transfer to a third party benefits the debtor's primary creditor, new value could come from the primary creditor, even if the third party was a creditor in its own right and was the only defendant against whom the debtor had asserted a claim of preference liability. As section 547(b) makes voidable a transfer "for the benefit of a creditor," it both served the purposes of section 547 and honored the statute's text to construe "such creditor" in the section 547(c)(4) exception as including a creditor who benefited from the preferential transfer and subsequently replenished the bankruptcy estate with new value. Therefore, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel correctly concluded that SDGE and SCE could each offset subsequent new value that Buffets or Wendy's paid to LGI for that utility's services, regardless of when those services were provided. The court directed the BAP to enter a modified judgment reducing SCE's preference liability based on the double-counting of two payments. The court otherwise affirmed the judgment. View "Stoebner v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co., et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from the bankruptcy court's order imposing sanctions and judgment, and an order denying a motion to vacate or alter or amend judgment. The bankruptcy appellate panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision that defendant violated Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011, as well as its imposition of sanctions in connection therewith, including suspension of defendant from practice for six months under Local Rule 2090-2; reversed the bankruptcy court's imposition of sanctions against defendant under 11 U.S.C. 105 and its inherent authority because defendant did not receive separate prior notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding such sanctions; and remanded to the bankruptcy court the decision regarding sanctions for alleged misrepresentations by defendant at the Order to Appear and Show Cause hearing. View "Young v. Cruz" on Justia Law

Debtor moved for sanctions after Stephen Wyse, representing on of debtor's creditors, filed suit in state court seeking in part to recover a debt discharged by debtor in bankruptcy. Wyse and his client, Frank Williams, failed to appear in opposition and the bankruptcy court granted the motion. Wyse and Williams subsequently appealed the orders granting in part their first motion for relief and denying the second motion for rehearing or relief. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court did not err in finding a portion of the debt Williams sought to collect in the state court action was debtor's pre-conversion debt. The bankruptcy court maintained the order of sanctions against Wyse for seeking to collect the portion of the $76,200 derived from debtor's pre-conversion debt to Williams, not for seeking to collect the post-discharge debts in the state court action. The bankruptcy court was perfectly within its discretion to impose the sanction. Given William's failure to introduce any other evidence regarding the specific amount of money he provided to debtor on April 19, 2010, the bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding Williams had not proven the exact amount of post-conversion debt debtor had incurred on that date. The court also concluded that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying the second motion for relief brought solely to raise neglected arguments in the first motion for relief. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the bankruptcy court. View "Williams, et al. v. King" on Justia Law

Appellant appealed the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's (BAP) judgment holding that the bankruptcy estate of her former employer, Racing Services, was entitled to the liquidation proceeds of a cash-value life insurance policy the employer purchased for her. Because the trustee had presented no evidence demonstrating that appellant could have demonstrated insurability, the court rejected the argument that the purported "equities" of this case required that the court deem appellant's failure to reinstate the policy as an act of surrender. The terms of the agreement between appellant and Racing Services granted Racing Services only the limited right to receive a repayment of policy premiums from the cash value upon surrender of the policy. Accordingly, the court reversed where appellant at no time surrendered the policy and the estate did not possess a right to control the policy or receive its liquidation proceeds. View "Kaler v. Bala" on Justia Law

Debtor appealed the bankruptcy court's order dismissing his adversary complaint for failure to state a claim. The bankruptcy appellate panel concluded that the bankruptcy court correctly dismissed debtor's adversary complaint where he did not challenge the validity, priority, or extent of the government's lien on any grounds other than his contention that the government's criminal action violated the district court's stay of actions and proceedings against him; debtor did not specifically identify or quantity under 11 U.S.C. 362(k) any damages arising from the government's alleged violation of the automatic stay for the bankruptcy court to consider; and a bankruptcy proceeding may not be used as a forum to mount a collateral attack on a final criminal judgment. Accordingly, the panel affirmed the judgment. View "Behrens v. United States" on Justia Law

Debtors filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and listed in their bankruptcy schedules a large volume of rice grain and farming equipment owned in connection with a joint venture. The Bank asserted a property interest and the trustee sought an injunction to prevent the Bank from exercising control over the rice and grain equipment. The court concluded that where a joint venture agreement exists, that document would be controlling as to the parties' intention. In this instance, Paragraph 13 of the joint venture agreement supported the bankruptcy court's determination that debtors had not intended to create a separate entity. Therefore, the rice grain was part of debtors' individual bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. 541 and the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to authorize the trustee to sell the rice grain. Accordingly, the court affirmed. View "Bank of England v. Rice" on Justia Law

The Trustee and Centris appealed the bankruptcy court's judgment to the extent that it determined certain funds were not property on the bankruptcy estate. Cross-claim Defendants appealed the same judgment to the extent it awarded the Trustee certain fees and expenses and surcharged those fees and expenses against the funds the bankruptcy court determined were not property of the bankruptcy estate. The bankruptcy appellate panel reversed and remanded, concluding that consideration of the issues was premature. The court believed the better course of action was to afford the bankruptcy court an opportunity to consider the arguments and explain its reasoning for accepting or rejecting them. View "Stalnaker v. Allison, et al." on Justia Law

Debtors filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy relief and proposed a plan to pay nondischargeable state and federal tax debts before other unsecured creditors. The bankruptcy court rejected the plan and the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) affirmed. Applying the four-part test for unfair discrimination in In re Leser, the court concluded that the plan unfairly discriminated against other unsecured creditors, leaving the unsecured creditors with little or nothing. The court rejected debtors' argument that their post-petition tax preparation fees should be treated as pre-confirmation legal fees or trustee administration fees where debtors did not file their pre-petition tax returns on time. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the bankruptcy court. View "Copeland, et al. v. Fink" on Justia Law

Debtor appealed the bankruptcy court's order, affirmed by the bankruptcy appellate panel, granting summary judgment in favor of the trustee regarding debtor's homestead exemption. The court affirmed, concluding that debtor never asserted an intention to move back into the property at issue nor had he refuted his statement at the 11 U.S.C. 341 meeting that he did not expect to live at the property at any point in the future. Further, denying the homestead exemption did not violate Article XXI, section 4 of the South Dakota Constitution where debtor removed himself from the property with no fixed or actual intent to return. View "Paul, Jr. v. Allred" on Justia Law