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

Georgina Stephens and Andrew Alexander appealed from the district court's decision affirming an order of the bankruptcy court giving possession of disputed property to the trustees of the individual bankruptcy estates of Ms. Stephens and Larry Alexander. Ms. Stephens and Mr. Alexander were previously married, Andrew is their son. This case stemmed from the separate bankruptcy petitions that Ms. Stephens and Mr. Alexander filed during their marriage and concerned the ownership and possession of certain property. Because Andrew had not challenged the district court's determination that he lacked standing to appeal the bankruptcy court's decision, the court deemed the issue waived; the court had jurisdiction to evict Ms. Stephens; the court rejected Ms. Stephens' res judicata and collateral estoppel arguments; and the court court rejected Ms. Stephens' remaining claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Alexander, et al v. Jensen-Carter, et al" on Justia Law

NABC appealed from the bankruptcy court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the Chapter 7 Trustee. The bankruptcy appellate panel (BAP) concluded that the bankruptcy court did not err in holding that NABC lost its possessory lien when it turned debtor's account funds over to the Trustee without first seeking adequate protection. Accordingly, the court affirmed the order. View "North American Banking Co. v. Leonard" on Justia Law

Debtor appealed the order of the bankruptcy court denying his motion for reconsideration of a previous order dismissing his chapter 7 case. The bankruptcy court, in issuing the previous order dismissing his case, denied debtor's request for a temporary waiver of the credit counseling requirement on his bankruptcy petition. The bankruptcy appellate panel (BAP) granted debtor's motion for rehearing and considered the merits of his appeal. Debtor had not identified anything in the record to suggest that the bankruptcy court, in denying his motion for reconsideration, failed to consider any relevant factors, considered or gave significant weight to any irrelevant or improper factors, or committed a clear error of judgment in weighing the proper factors. Consequently, the BAP found no abuse of discretion and affirmed the judgment. View "Bourgeois v. Bank of America" on Justia Law

Debtor appealed from the judgment of the bankruptcy court. At issue was whether the bonuses debtor received from her employer were considered property of debtor's estate. Because the bankruptcy appellate panel (BAP) held that the bonus payments were not property of debtor's bankruptcy estate because she had no cognizable interest in the payments on the date the petition was filed, the court must reverse the bankruptcy court's revocation of debtor's discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 727(d)(2); avoidance of the transfer under 11 U.S.C. 549 of bonus funds she received postpetition from her employer and entering judgment for recovery of those funds by the Chapter 7 trustee, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 550; and granting the trustee's motion for costs filed by the trustee pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7054(b). View "Seaver v. Klein-Swanson" on Justia Law

Debtor appealed from the bankruptcy court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the Chapter 7 Trustee on his objection to debtor's claimed homestead exemption. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's conclusion that debtor had abandoned the property at issue as his homestead by removing himself from the property with no fixed or actual intent to return, and was not, therefore, permitted to claim a homestead exemption. View "Paul, Jr. v. Allred" on Justia Law

Debtor, an inmate serving a life sentence with no possibility of parole, appealed from a bankruptcy court's order denying his motion for contempt for violation of his discharge injunction. The $45.00 automatically collected from debtor's inmate account was properly forwarded to the State in partial satisfaction of the post-petition costs of incarceration for which debtor remained liable under the Missouri Incarceration Reimbursement Act's, Mo. Ann. Stat. 217.825-217.841, judgment. Debtor's additional arguments lacked merit. Therefore, the bankruptcy appellate panel concluded that the bankruptcy court's decision was not based on clearly erroneous factual determinations or erroneous legal conclusions. The bankruptcy court acted within its discretion and the panel affirmed the judgment. View "Smith v. State of Missouri" on Justia Law

Debtors appealed from a bankruptcy court order requiring them to convey to the bank real property. At issue was whether the bankruptcy court erred in its interpretation of the phrase "abandon the properties to Centennial Bank," as used in its earlier order and in debtors' confirmed Chapter 11 plan, to require debtors to convey real property to the bank. The bankruptcy appellate panel held that the bankruptcy court acted within its discretion when it interpreted its order and the Chapter 11 plan to mean that debtors were required to convey the real property to the bank. View "Kelley, et al v. Centennial Bank" on Justia Law

Appellant petitioned for protection under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, listing a sales-commission agreement (SCA) as non-exempt personal property with an estimated value of $6 million. He did not claim that payments owed under the SCA were exempt property on Schedule C of the petition. On appeal, appellant argued that the bankruptcy court erred by disregarding his request to amend his schedule of exempt property and approving the settlement. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance and approving the settlement and therefore, affirmed the judgment. View "Hecker v. Seaver" on Justia Law

Debtor appealed the judgment of the bankruptcy court determining that the debt he owed to the Bank was excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(2)(B) and denying any recovery on debtor's counterclaim. Debtor raised several issues on appeal. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) affirmed the bankruptcy court's judgment, holding that the bankruptcy court applied the correct legal standing in determining whether the Bank reasonably relied on debtor's written statements; the BAP could not conclude that the bankruptcy court's findings of fact were clearly erroneous; and debtor not only consented to the bankruptcy court's entering a final judgment on the state law counterclaims, he lacked standing to pursue an appeal from the bankruptcy court's final judgment on the counterclaims. View "Bank of Nebraska v. Rose" on Justia Law

This was a preference action under 11 U.S.C. 547 by the Chapter 7 trustee to recover a payoff payment to Border State Bank from proceeds of debtor's liquidation sale. The bankruptcy court denied the Bank's motion for summary judgment, holding that the perfection of the Bank's lien was within the perfection period under section 547(b) and that the floating lien defense in section 547(c)(5) did not provide a defense to a security interest that was actually perfected during the preference period. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) held that the bankruptcy court did not err in holding that section 547(c)(5) did not apply and in thus ruling in favor of the trustee on the Bank's motion for summary judgment; the bankruptcy court did not err in holding that liquidation as part of the cessation of debtor's business was not ordinary course; and the bankruptcy court did not err in rejecting the Bank's new value defense. The court also held that payment to the bank of funds which were held in debtor's account at the Bank at the start of the liquidation period was not a preferential transfer or an improper setoff. However, the Bank should be required to pay for the services it hired to analyze its own best strategy and the court committed clear error in giving it credit for that expenditure. View "Velde v. Border State Bank" on Justia Law