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

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

Bruce Martin filed suit against CTB for negligent misrepresentation and breach of express warranty after the power sweeps it purchased from CTB did not work. The court concluded that it's decision in Dannix Painting, LLC v. Sherwin-Williams foreclosed Bruce Martin's argument that the district court erred in concluding that Missouri's economic loss doctrine precluded its negligent misrepresentation claim. Further, the court concluded that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to CTB on Bruce Martin's breach of express warranty claim. Under Indiana law, the court agreed with the district court that Bruce Martin had alleged a defect in the design of the sweeps that was not covered by CTB's warranty against "defects in material and workmanship." Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Bruce Martin Construction, Inc. v. CTB, Inc." on Justia Law

In a prior appeal, the court held that Travelers was entitled to receive $10 million from a primary insurer who had obtained a larger judgment through subrogation litigation against a third party. In this instance, the court concluded that the district court erred in holding that the court had decided the attorneys' fee issue in its prior opinion. However, the error was harmless because the court held that the equitable common-fund doctrine applied. The court also held that it was necessary to amend the amount of the common-fund offset; the district court erred in holding that the court's prior opinion precluded prejudgment and postjudgment interest; such error was not harmless and, therefore, the court reversed; the award to Travelers must be increased to reflect prejudgment and postjudgment interest; and the court directed the district court to enter judgment as detailed. View "Travelers Property Casualty Ins. v. National Union Ins." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the first African-American circuit court judge elected in Phillips County, Arkansas, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against the commission and officials during the disciplinary proceedings against him. The district court denied plaintiff's request for a temporary restraining order and stayed proceedings in accordance with the Younger abstention doctrine. The state disciplinary proceedings ended with a decision by the Arkansas Supreme Court. The district court then granted the commission and officials' Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss, finding no justifiable federal controversy. The court concluded that Defendant Stewart, Executive Director of the commission, was entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity as to plaintiff's claims for damages on the first cause of action; plaintiff had no justiciable claim for damages against any defendant in the second cause of action where plaintiff's allegations amounted to nothing more than a state law defamation claim and the district court did not abuse its discretion; and plaintiff's requests for declaratory and injunctive relief were moot. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Simes, II v. Arkansas Judicial D. & D. Comm, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g). The court concluded that possession of a short-barreled shotgun presented a serious potential risk of physical injury to others and was similar, in kind as well as degree of risk posed, to the offenses listed in the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). Therefore, the court concluded that the district court properly ruled that defendant's conviction was an ACCA-qualifying felony. Further, the district court properly rejected defendant's contention that the residual clause of section 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) was unconstitutionally vague where the Supreme Court has rejected this argument twice in recent years. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Brown" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to second-degree murder. The court concluded that the sentencing transcript showed that the district court made an individualized assessment and adequately explained the chosen sentence. Even with the presumption of reasonableness, defendant's sentence was justified by the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), which were all discussed by the district court. Accordingly, the court concluded that defendant's sentence of 360 months' imprisonment was not substantively unreasonable and affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Yankton" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from orders of the bankruptcy court awarding judgments against him for intentional conversion of property, for costs of suit, and determining that the judgments were not discharged under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(6). The bankruptcy appellate panel concluded that the bankruptcy court did not err in granting preclusive effect to the Minnesota state court's order regarding ownership of the assets at issue and defendant did not raise any other assignments of error. Accordingly, the panel affirmed the decision of the bankruptcy panel. View "Phillips, et al. v. Phillips" on Justia Law

Debtor filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. At issue on appeal was whether debtor had standing under Bankruptcy Code 522(h) to bring his action under Bankruptcy Code 545(2). Section 522(b) permitted a debtor to use certain exemptions, and generally, a debtor could exempt property that was exempt under section 522(d). In this instance, the amount of the exemption claimed by debtor under section 522(d)(1) was within the statutory limit allowed under that section, and the parties stipulated that the property was debtor's homestead. Accordingly, debtor had standing to bring his adversary proceeding where there was no basis in the record upon which the property would have been disqualified from being exempt if the trustee had avoided the lien. View "McCarthy v. Brevik Law" on Justia Law

Appellants appealed the district court's dismissal of all of their appeals concerning the purchase agreements to jointly-owned property and the underlying bankruptcy court orders. The property was owned by Sears Cattle and AFY, a debtor in bankruptcy. The court concluded that 11 U.S.C. 363(m) mooted the Tract 1 appeal. Appellants' failure to preserve their appeal of the district court's holding that Sears Cattle did not object to the motion to pay funds precluded the court from addressing Sears Cattle's appeal of the order to pay funds to the district court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's holding that Sears Cattle could not appeal the order. Because the Sears could not assert a direct interest in the litigation, they lacked appellate standing for bankruptcy purposes under the shareholder standing rule. Accordingly, the district court did not err in finding the Sears lacked standing to appeal the order to pay funds. Because AFY was not a debtor-in-possession, the trustee had standing to move to convert. The court rejected the Sears' remaining arguments. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Sears, et al. v. Badami" on Justia Law