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

This case arose when the IRS gave Fred Bame an erroneous tax refund of over $500,000. After Fred died and the government was unable to collect from his estate, the government filed suit against his ex-wife and two corporations she owned to recover the money. On appeal, the ex-wife and the corporate defendants challenged the district court's award based on unjust enrichment to the government. The court concluded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the government where there was a genuine issue of material fact as to the ex-wife's good faith defense. Further, there was a genuine issue of material fact as to the ex-wife's entitlement to the money Fred transferred to her. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Bames, et al." on Justia Law

After a patient's death, the patient's family sued the VA for medical malpractice. The VA settled with the family and determined that the settlement was "for the benefit of" plaintiff, who was a treating physician. Plaintiff then filed suit against the VA alleging violations of his due process rights and violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq. The court concluded that the district court did not err by dismissing the procedural due process claim because plaintiff failed to plead the deprivation of a constitutionally protected interest; the district court did not err by dismissing plaintiff's substantive due-process claim because plaintiff's pleadings were insufficient; the VA's factfinding procedures were adequate and the district court properly rejected de novo review; the district court did not grossly abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff's motion to supplement the record; and the VA's decision was not arbitrary or capricious, and the district court did not err by granting summary judgment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Rochling v. Dept. of VA, et al." on Justia Law

Debtor appealed the bankruptcy court's order allowing a claim filed by the DHHS as a priority debt in the nature of a domestic support obligation. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the debt owed to DHHS was a debt in the nature of support of a child under 11 U.S.C. 101(14A)(B). The court concluded that debtor's remaining arguments lacked merit. View "Hernandez v. Dept. of Health & Human Serv." on Justia Law

These consolidated appeals concerned a home previously owned by debtor. On appeal, the Trustee challenged the bankruptcy court's order holding that he recover nothing from defendants on his action to avoid a transfer which occurred when defendants perfected their liens on estate property postpetition. GMAC challenged the part of the order holding that the automatic stay was not violated and that GMAC lacked standing in the matter. The bankruptcy appellate panel (BAP) concluded that GMAC did not have standing to appeal any violation of the stay because, if GMAC was aggrieved, it was either by a wrongful foreclosure by U.S. Bank or by its own failure to protect its interests, not by the registration of the judgments or the order. Therefore, the court dismissed GMAC's appeal. In regards to the Trustee's claim, the BAP affirmed the bankruptcy court's awarding of nothing to the Trustee where the estate's interest had no value in and of itself, and the loss of a right to use some sort of "leverage" to get money to which the estate was not entitled was not the basis for a cause of action. View "Seaver v. New Buffalo Auto Sales, LLC, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under Titles I and V of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., against his employer and various state employees, alleging that defendants retaliated against him in response to a prior discrimination suit that he had filed against them. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because sovereign immunity barred plaintiff's claims for money damages against defendants. View "Lors v. Dean, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant was acquitted of sexual abuse of an incapacitated person but convicted of kidnapping. On appeal, defendant argued that his acquittal on the sexual abuse count required an acquittal on the kidnapping count as a matter of law. The court concluded that the district court did not plainly err in issuing the first supplemental jury instruction where a jury could have validly concluded that defendant was guilty of kidnapping the victim to prevent her from reporting the sexual assault, despite concluding that defendant was not guilty of sexual abuse; the second supplemental instruction was correct, despite not restating all of the elements of the kidnapping, and the district court was careful to include a second paragraph stating that the instructions should be taken as a whole; the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal where there was sufficient evidence to find defendant guilty of kidnapping; and the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion for a new trial where the district court properly considered the victim's testimony as probative of defendant's motive, properly considered the testimony of witnesses who corroborated the victim's testimony, and defendant's argument that the kidnapping conviction could not stand on its own lacked merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Ford" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1001-1461, alleging that defendants violated ERISA when defendants, realizing that they had paid plaintiffs excess retirement benefits, reduced plaintiffs' monthly benefit payments and recouped overpayments through withholding. The court concluded that Count One of the complaint was time-barred; the court rejected plaintiffs' argument that defendants had no authority to either correct or recoup the benefit overpayments where the 2002 plan booklet contained broad language granting defendants such action; because the PPNPF was a defined-benefit plan, plaintiffs could not recover individualized relief in a section 1132(a)(2) claim; and plaintiffs' claim for equitable estoppel under section 1132(a)(3)(B) failed where this claim mirrored Count One's section 1132(a)(1)(B) claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants. View "Pilger, et al. v. Sweeney, et al." on Justia Law

Residential filed suit against Terrace alleging breach of contract when Terrace refused to repurchase loans Residential purchased from Terrace. The court rejected, under Minnesota law, Terrace's argument that the contract provisions at issue were mere conditions precedent; Terrace identified no ambiguity in the language of the contract which would permit the court to look beyond its plain language; even if it were entitled to do so, Terrace presented no support for its claim that litigation conduct was a more revealing source of the contracting parties' intent than the language of the contract itself; the on-demand repurchase provision did not make the contract unenforceable for lack of consideration; the demand repurchase provision does not make the contract unconscionable; Residential did not act in bad faith; Terrace's waiver and prior breach arguments were rejected, as well as Terrace's arguments regarding other specified loans; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding damages to Residential or in its calculation of Residential's attorneys' fees and costs. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Residential Funding Co. v. Terrace Mortgage Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, four former inmates, filed suit under 42 U.S.C. 1983, seeking monetary and injunctive relief for detention beyond their release dates. The court affirmed the district court's grant of qualified immunity to the DOC Director on the individual capacity damage claims because, under the circumstances, the law did not fairly warn him that the amount of time spent recalculating thousands of release dates, including plaintiffs', recklessly disregarded their constitutional right to release. View "Scott v. Baldwin" on Justia Law

Petitioner and his family, Kenyan citizens, petitioned for review of the BIA's order denying them asylum and withholding of removal. The court held that Mungiki defectors constituted a "particular social group" and that the record compelled the conclusion that the Kenyan government was unwilling or unable to control the Mungiki. Therefore, the BIA erred in denying petitioner's claims on the merits. Further, the BIA abused its discretion in denying petitioner's motion to remand to allow petitioner's sister to testify in person because her testimony, if credited, was likely to change the IJ's credibility findings and thus change the outcome of the case. Accordingly, the court granted the petition for review. View "Gathungu, et al. v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law