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

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

Dittmer appealed the district court's dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) of their two lawsuits against a failed bank, the FDIC as the bank's receiver, and the successor representative to the Estate of John Peters. Barkley is a Missouri general partnership with two equal partners, John Peters and Joe Dittmer. In the first of two eventual lawsuits arising out of a 2006 loan transaction to Barkley, Dittmer, representing Joe Dittmer's half interest in Barkley, sued Premier Bank, seeking declaratory judgment that the loan should be declared void as to Dittmer and sought to enjoin the bank from selling encumbered property. The suit was filed in Missouri state court, and the primary basis for Dittmer's complaint was that Peters did not have authority from his partner, Joe Dittmer, to mortgage Barkley property for this transaction. The second suit included the same claims as the first case but included various Dittmer successors as plaintiffs, and both the FDIC and the personal representative were added as defendants. The court found that under 12 U.S.C. 1821(j), the district court correctly dismissed Dittmer's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief; given the language of the Missouri Uniform Partnership Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. 358.090(1), the amended partnership agreement, and the power of attorney documents, the district court correctly dismissed the claim in the second suit against the FDIC; and the court agreed with the district court that the doctrine of res judicata required dismissal of the second suit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Dittmer Properties v. FDIC, et al" on Justia Law

Mortgagors appealed from the district court's dismissal of their claims against the FHLMC and other financial institutions, a law firm, and others. Mortgagors asserted twenty-one claims under Minnesota law related to defendants' rights to the mortgages on the mortgagors' homes. The court rejected the mortgagors' argument that the district court improperly dismissed their claims against the law firm and their contention that their complaint made out a Minnesota slander-of-title action. The court also concluded that the mortgagors did not make out a quiet title claim and the district court properly dismissed their claims against the financial institutions. View "Peterson, et al v. CitiMortgage, Inc., et al" on Justia Law

Mortgagors filed suit in Minnesota state court against defendants, alleging numerous deficiencies in the assignment of their mortgages and in their foreclosures. In this appeal, plaintiffs asserted that the district court erred in denying their motion to remand when it concluded that they failed to make out claims for slander of title, declaratory judgment, and quiet title, and in mistakenly relying on Jackson v. Mortgage Registration Sys. Because the court recently concluded that nearly identical claims against a resident law firm had no reasonable basis in law and fact under Minnesota law and constituted fraudulent joinder, the court rejected plaintiffs' contention that the district court erred by dismissing the claims against the law firm and denying remand; the court disposed of the slander-of-title claim because the court recently upheld the dismissal of a virtually identical claim in Butler v. Bank of America; the court denied plaintiffs' request for declaratory judgment to determine whether defendants had "any true interest in or right to foreclose on their properties" and whether the notes were properly accelerated by the correct party; and the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the quiet title action. View "Karnatcheva, et al v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sued Wells Fargo for fraudulent misrepresentation and promissory estoppel after Wells Fargo initiated foreclosure when plaintiffs stopped paying on their mortgage loan. The court held that plaintiffs have not stated a plausible claim for fraudulent misrepresentation regarding the modification of their home loan and therefore, the district court did not err in dismissing plaintiffs' claims under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b). The court also held that plaintiffs have not stated a plausible claim for promissory estoppel and the district court did not err in dismissing their claim. View "Freitas, et al v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc." on Justia Law

Oakdale and Cincinnati disputed whether the commercial property insurance policy Oakdale purchased from Cincinnati covered a loss suffered by Oakdale in August 2009. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Cincinnati, concluding that the policy excluded Oakdale's damages where the district court accepted Oakdale's specific calculations of common area and decided that they were insufficient to allow a reasonable jury to find the vacancy provision of the policy was met. View "Oakdale Mall Assoc. v. Cincinnati Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Minneapolis police arrested defendant in 2003 and seized several items of his property. After his conviction and the disposition of his appeals, defendant moved under Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to have his property returned. The district court denied the motion. The court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. On remand the district court denied defendant's request to subpoena a witness and declined to convert his motion into a civil action for damages. Defendant subsequently appealed. Since the state court judge voluntarily wrote the district court and confirmed that she had not handled the evidence before or during trial and had been absent after trial when the property was lost, the court need not address any issue of judicial immunity or whether the district court abused its discretion by not issuing a subpoena. The court also held that the district court abused its discretion in denying defendant's motion to convert the Rule 41 action into a civil claim for damages where defendant should have been allowed an opportunity to convert his Rule 41 motion into an action for damages against the government because the government no longer possessed the property at issue. View "United States v. Bailey" on Justia Law

U.S. Bank appealed from an order granting the motion of debtor to value U.S. Bank's allowed secured claim pursuant to section 506(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, and valuing the claim at $3,500,000. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel held that the order was not final but that U.S. Bank's alternative request to grant leave to appeal it as an interlocutory order should be granted. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel also concluded that low income tax credits that the owner of the property was eligible to claim, as well as the obligations they imposed, did affect the value of the property and should have been considered as part of the property's value. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "U.S. Bank Nat'l Assoc. v. Lewis & Clark Apartments, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, property owners of the Subdivision, filed a declaratory judgment against defendants, alleging that defendants, who also own property in the Subdivision, violated certain restrictive covenants by renting their property to friends and others to use as a vacation home. The district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that the Arkansas rule of strict construction favoring the "unfettered use of land" required that the court affirm the judgment of the district court. Accordingly, defendants' rental of the property did not violate the restrictive covenants. View "Dunn, et al v. Aamodt, et al" on Justia Law

Debtors appealed from the ruling of the bankruptcy court granting summary judgment to SunTrust and denying summary judgment to debtors, on debtors' adversary complaint that challenged SunTrust's standing to enforce a promissory note and deed of trust on debtors' property, and sought to remove the deed of trust from the chain of title to such property. The court affirmed the bankruptcy court's judgment and held that the promissory note was a negotiable instrument and that SunTrust was entitled to enforce it and the deed of trust. The bankruptcy court properly used evidence from the affidavit of SunTrust's representative and properly applied judicial estoppel. View "Knigge, et al v. SunTrust Mortgage, Inc." on Justia Law