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

Empire Bank appealed from the bankruptcy court's order and judgment declaring that Arvest Bank's judicial lien was superior to the liens asserted by Empire Bank and directing judgment in favor of debtors on their preferential transfer claim against Empire Bank. The panel concluded that Arvest Bank and debtors failed to meet their burden of proof and the bankruptcy court erred in holding that the Empire Bank deed of trust was invalid for a lack of consideration; the "unsecured" language in the guaranty documents was true when they were executed and the status of the guaranties as unsecured changed when the deed of trust was signed but that change in the status of the guaranties was not a latent ambiguity in the Empire Bank deed of trust; the bankruptcy court erred in holding that a latent ambiguity existed where the Empire Bank deed of trust was subject to more than one interpretation; and, after addressing remaining arguments, the panel reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Arvest Bank v. Empire Bank" on Justia Law

Debtors filed a chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. Prior to the petition, Collection Associates filed a collection suit against one of the debtors in Nebraska state court and obtained a judgment. On appeal, debtors challenged an order of the bankruptcy court denying their complaint to avoid and recover transfers of wages to Collection Associates. The bankruptcy appellate panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's judgment where 11 U.S.C. 547(c)(8) applied as a defense to this preference action because the amount sought to be recovered was less than $600. View "Pierce, et al. v. Collection Assoc., Inc." on Justia Law

Debtor appealed the bankruptcy court's order sustaining the trustee's objection to debtor's claimed exemption. Debtor had filed a petition for relief under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code and had claimed exempt, as a public assistance benefit under MO.REV.STAT. 513.430.1(10)(a), the portion of her 2012 federal income tax refund that was attributable to a child tax credit allowed under 26 U.S.C. 24. The court affirmed the bankruptcy court's order sustaining the trustee's objection to debtor's claimed exemption, concluding that the refundable portion of the child tax credit was not a public assistance benefit within the meaning of the statute and could not be claimed exempt under the statute. View "Hardy v. Fink" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the bankruptcy court's denial of a motion for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9024 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. The bankruptcy appellate panel concluded that plaintiff did not have standing to appeal the bankruptcy court's denial of the Rule 60 motion because he did not possess a financial stake in the bankruptcy court's order denying the motion. Therefore, the panel dismissed the appeal. View "Conway, et al. v. Heyl" on Justia Law

Debtor appealed from the bankruptcy court's order denying sanctions against the Bank. Although the evidence suggested that the Bank could have been aware of debtor's personal bankruptcy filing, there was no evidence that the Bank had knowledge of the Assignment and the purported transfer of the LLC's assets to him. The replevin action filed by the Bank did not name debtor, individually, and sought only to repossess equipment owned by the LLC in which the Bank had a properly perfected security interest. Consequently, there could be no knowing or deliberate conduct attributed to the Bank in its conduct to enforce its lien against the collateral it believed was owned by the LLC. Absent a showing that the Bank was aware of the Assignment, a willful stay violation could not be found. Because a finding that there has been a willful violation of the automatic stay was a prerequisite to an award of sanctions, the court affirmed the bankruptcy court's denial of sanctions. View "Carter, Jr., et al. v. First National Bank of Crosset" on Justia Law

Debtor appealed from the bankruptcy court's order granting creditor relief from the automatic stay to complete its foreclosure proceeding without a further hearing in debtor's case. The bankruptcy appellate panel concluded that the bankruptcy court correctly applied 11 U.S.C. 362(d)(4)(B) with respect to the property at issue to creditor as a creditor whose claim was secured by an interest in the real property. Likewise, the panel did not second guess the bankruptcy court's determination that debtor's bankruptcy filing was part of a scheme to hinder or delay creditors, and that such scheme was one involving multiple bankruptcy filings that affected the property. Accordingly, the panel held that the bankruptcy court's grant of relief from the automatic stay to creditor was proper. View "Behrens v. U.S. Bank N.A." on Justia Law

Debtors filed a motion requesting findings of contempt against Great Western. The bankruptcy court denied debtors' motion, concluding that there was no time frame within which the bank was required to file an amended UCC financing statement. The bankruptcy appellate panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's denial of the motion because the order approving the stipulation was not clear, unambiguous or certain. View "Fischer, et al. v. Great Western Bank" on Justia Law

Creditor appealed from the orders of the bankruptcy court denying his requests for relief from the automatic stay and for abstention and remand. The court held that the bankruptcy court properly denied creditor's request for stay relief where there was no purpose for granting the stay since creditor's state court malpractice and negligence actions against debtor were dischargeable debts and his fraud claim was discharged when creditor failed to timely file an adversary proceeding. Further, there was no basis for an order of abstention and remand. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the bankruptcy court. View "Chae v. Bennett" on Justia Law

Debtor filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy and claimed an annuity as exempt under 11 U.S.C. 522(b)(3)(C). The court agreed with the bankruptcy court's holding that the annuity owned by debtor qualified as an "individual retirement annuity" under section 408(b) of the Internal Revenue Code and was, therefore, exempt under section 522(b)(3)(C) of the Bankruptcy Code. View "Running v. Miller" on Justia Law

Debtors appealed the bankruptcy court's dismissal of their adversary proceeding. Citimortgage, a secured creditor, held a lien on debtors' primary residence and filed a claim and then debtors filed an objection urging disallowance of the claim as untimely. The parties agreed to the entry of an order disallowing the claim and debtors subsequently initiated an adversary proceeding seeking the avoidance of Citimortgage's lien. Relying on the plain language of 11 U.S.C. 506(d), debtors argued that disallowance of Citimortgage's claim necessarily voided Citimortgage's corresponding lien. Joining the Fourth and Seventh Circuits, the court rejected debtors' argument and agreed with the bankruptcy court that a secured creditor's lien was not void due solely to the fact that the secured creditor filed an untimely claim. View "Shelton, et al. v. Citimortgage" on Justia Law