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

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

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