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

A bankruptcy court ordered that the Laurel Avenue house be vacated and authorized U.S. Marshals to physically remove plaintiff, the debtor's son, from the home. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the dismissal of his suit, which alleged, inter alia, that his constitutional rights were violated when the house, its contents, and his person were searched and seized. The court found no error in the dismissal of plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. 1983 claim against the federal defendants where he did not allege a Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics action in the amended complaint, nor did he seek to amend to add the claim; plaintiff's section 1983 claim failed against the city and the city's officers where plaintiff failed to set forth sufficient facts to show a direct causal link between the city's policy or custom and the alleged violation of his constitutional rights; the district court did not err in dismissing his tort claims against the trustees under the doctrine established in Barton v. Barbour, which established that an equity receiver could not be sued without leave of the court that appointed him; and because the dismissal of plaintiff's federal claims was proper, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Alexander v. Hedback, et al." on Justia Law

Debtor appealed from a bankruptcy court order confirming her Chapter 13 plan over her objection. Debtor filed her model form Chapter 13 plan using the mandatory model form and inserted certain non-standard language in paragraph 10, a blank paragraph labeled "Other." The trustee objected based on the non-standard language. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court properly denied confirmation of her first amended plan because debtor conceded that one or more of her proposed additions were appropriately rejected; the model plan form did not infringe upon a debtor's substantive rights; the bankruptcy court did not issue a blanket rejection of a debtor's ability to include language in paragraph 10; instead, the bankruptcy court considered the specific proposed language and rejected it as, among other things, inconsistent, confusing, and contrary to the Bankruptcy Code; and, therefore, the court affirmed the order. View "McIntosh v. LaBarge, Jr., et al." on Justia Law

Debtor appealed from the bankruptcy court's order finding that her prepetition claim against her former spouse for alimony was property of her bankruptcy estate, and ordering her to turn that claim over to the trustee. The bankruptcy appellate panel (BAP) concluded that debtor had not shown that the right to alimony payments was different from any other stream of payments someone could have been ordered to pay to her under South Dakota law. Therefore, the BAP concluded that it fit within the broad definition under 11 U.S.C. 541(a)(1), and was not expressly excluded by section 541(b) or (c)(2). Thus, it was property of the estate, subject to any exemptions debtor could have under South Dakota law. Accordingly, the BAP affirmed the bankruptcy court's order. View "Mehlhaff v. Allred" on Justia Law

Appellant, a creditor of the debtor corporation, appealed a decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) affirming the bankruptcy court's denial of his motion to determine claims. The bankruptcy court granted appellant's subsequent motion to reopen the case, agreeing with the state court that appellant's claims were precluded and denied his motion to determine claims. The BAP affirmed the bankruptcy court on a different ground, reasoning that the bankruptcy court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to consider appellant's motion. Because the court must accord the state court's judgment preclusive effect under 28 U.S.C. 1738, the court affirmed the decision of the bankruptcy court. View "Cawley v. Celeste, et al" on Justia Law

This was an appeal of the bankruptcy court's order granting debtor's motion to dismiss an adversary proceeding as untimely. Prior to debtor's bankruptcy filing, plaintiffs filed a complaint against debtor asserting various state law claims including intentional torts. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) concluded that since there was no deadline to file a complaint under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(3)(B), plaintiffs had the right to proceed with their complaint to try to prove that they held a debt of a kind described in section 523(a)(6). Therefore, the BAP reversed the bankruptcy court's order granting the motion to dismiss. View "Hathorn, et al v. Petty" on Justia Law

This appeal arose from a dispute regarding the existence, validity, and priority of liens of three lenders on a piece of equipment that was owned by the debtor, and the proceeds from the sale in bankruptcy of that equipment. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) concluded that the bankruptcy court correctly held that BOW held a senior security interest in the equipment and the grant of summary judgment to BOW to NBKC's claims for equitable relief based on mutual mistake was proper. Accordingly, the BAP affirmed the judgment of the bankruptcy court. View "Bank of the West v. National Bank of Kansas City" on Justia Law

Claimant, pro se, appealed from the order of the bankruptcy court denying his motion for reconsideration of a claim. The gist of claimant's appeal was that he wanted the bankruptcy court to enter an order simply requiring that his "restitution" claim be paid from some source. To the extent that claimant was requesting that the bankruptcy court deviate from the Bankruptcy Code and order that his claim be paid from some source not authorized by the Code, the bankruptcy court was without the authority to grant the relief he requested. Because the bankruptcy court could not grant claimant the relief he requested, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's order denying his motion for reconsideration. View "Lynd v. Ries" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's dismissal of his breach of contract and retaliation claim against Boston Scientific. Plaintiff filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and then Boston Scientific terminated his employment shortly after his filing. The court concluded that, because the guaranteed payments at issue, if due at all, were property of the bankruptcy estate, plaintiff lacked standing to assert his breach of contract claim. Plaintiff's argument that had Boston Scientific not terminated him, the payments he received under the Employment Agreement would have been future earnings also failed. Because plaintiff never requested leave to amend his complaint to include a retaliation claim, the district court could not be faulted for failing to allow him to do so. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Longaker v. Boston Scientific Corp., et al" on Justia Law

Debtor appealed the final judgment of the bankruptcy court awarding plaintiff $350,490 and determining that amount to be nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(2)(A). The bankruptcy appellate panel (BAP) concluded that the record did not support a finding that the $300,000 loan under the modified oral agreement was made in reliance on a fraudulent representation made concurrently with the creation of the debt. Thus, that portion of plaintiff's claim could not be excepted from discharge and the BAP reversed the bankruptcy court's judgment to that extent. However, the record did support a finding that the Las Vegas deal was between plaintiff and debtor individually and the further finding that plaintiff established each of the requirements of section 523(a)(2)(A) with respect to the $50,490 he loaned debtor pursuant to that agreement. Thus, the BAP affirmed the bankruptcy court's determination of nondischargeability to that extent. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "Heide v. Juve" on Justia Law

Debtor appealed from the order of the bankruptcy court converting his Chapter 7 bankruptcy case to a case under Chapter 11, pursuant to section 706(b) of Title 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The bankruptcy appellate panel (BAP) concluded that it was irrelevant that debtor was an individual with primarily non-consumer debts. The BAP also concluded that the bankruptcy court acted within its discretion when it assessed the evidence and determined conversion was warranted. Accordingly, the bankruptcy court acted within its discretion under section 706(b) and, therefore, the BAP affirmed the judgment. View "Schlehuber v. Fremont National Bank & Trust" on Justia Law