FindLaw Opinion Summaries - Bankruptcy Law

In re: Smith

Fri, 6 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. 1st Cir., Bankruptcy Law, Contracts, Debt Collection, Family Law, Government Law) Order of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reversing an order of the Bankruptcy Court is affirmed as a late alimony payment penalty was not a domestic support obligation, and as such, the ex-wife's claim was a general unsecured claim not entitled to priority status and consequently dischargeable.

In re: Bender

Thu, 5 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. 9th Cir., Bankruptcy Law, Civil Procedure) In a bankruptcy adversary action seeking avoidance of the transfer of a parcel of real property from the debtor to defendant, defendant's appeal from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel's (BAP) affirmance of the bankruptcy court's ruling that the doctrine of equitable tolling applied to the trustee's filing of the proceeding is dismissed where the BAP's order was nonfinal.

Ogle v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md.

Thu, 5 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. 2d Cir., Attorney's Fees, Bankruptcy Law) In an appeal from the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's order requiring a liquidating trust to pay post-petition attorneys' fees on a claim that stemmed from a pre-petition indemnity agreement, the judgment is affirmed where such claims are categorically allowable.

In re: Paige

Tue, 3 Nov 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. 10th Cir., Bankruptcy Law) In an appeal from the bankruptcy court's decision confirming appellees' joint bankruptcy reorganization plan and denying appellants' competing plan, dismissal of the appeal as moot is reversed where: 1) the competing plan could theoretically be confirmed without requiring disgorgement of payments made to third-party creditors; and 2) reversal of the existing plan would not require the undoing of complex transactions.

In the Matter of: Proeducation Int'l. Inc.

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 21:00:02 PDT

(U.S. 5th Cir., Bankruptcy Law, Ethics & Disciplinary Code, Ethics & Professional Responsibility, Sanctions) In an appeal from the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's order disqualifying counsel for a creditor, the order is reversed where: 1) the bankruptcy court should have considered counsel's evidence of his lack of involvement with the debtor while at his prior law firm in making its decision; and 2) counsel presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he did not operate under a conflict of interest when he undertook the representation of creditor.

In re: Riebesell

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. 10th Cir., Bankruptcy Law, Ethics & Disciplinary Code, Ethics & Professional Responsibility) In a bankruptcy adversary proceeding seeking to prevent the discharge of a debt owed to plaintiff by his attorney (the debtor), judgment for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) the parties had an attorney-client relationship during the relevant period under Colorado law; 2) the loans to defendant were not "standard commercial transactions" exempt from the requirements of Colo. R. Prof'l Conduct 1.8(a); and 3) the bankruptcy court's finding that defendant had the requisite intent to deceive plaintiff was not clearly erroneous.

In the Matter of: Greater Southeast Cmty. Hosp. Found., Inc.

Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. D.C. Cir., Bankruptcy Law, Civil Procedure, Ethics & Professional Responsibility) In an appeal from a district court order striking plaintiff's attorney as counsel of record and terminating his status as an appellant from a bankruptcy court order, the order is affirmed where: 1) counsel was not a licensed attorney; and 2) he lacked prudential standing to appeal from the bankruptcy court's order.

In re: Reale

Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:00:04 PDT

(U.S. 1st Cir., Bankruptcy Law) In bankruptcy trustee's action to recover money paid to a creditor, bankruptcy court's award of $20,000 preference recovery judgment against National Lumber is affirmed where: 1) a conclusion that the debtor exercised sufficient control over the funds at issue to demonstrate that they were an interest of the debtor in property is supported by the record; and 2) successor judge had no obligation to recall witnesses or to order a new trial.

In re: Simply Media, Inc.

Wed, 14 Oct 2009 20:00:04 PDT

(U.S. 1st Cir., Bankruptcy Law, Civil Procedure) In a case arising from bankruptcy proceedings involving fraudulent transfers, given the deficiencies of the present briefing, the appeal is dismissed and defendant's counsel ordered to show cause by written response as to why the court should not order payment by him personally of attorney's fees, double costs or both for a brief that renders the appeal frivolous.

In re: Peaslee

Fri, 9 Oct 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. 2d Cir., Bankruptcy Law, Commercial Law) In a debtor's appeal from a district court's order reversing the bankruptcy court's confirmation of the debtor's Chapter 13 plan, the district court's order is affirmed where the New York Court of Appeals held, in response to a certified question from the court of appeals, that negative equity on a trade-in vehicle is included in the purchase money security interest accompanying a new car's purchase and is therefore protected from cramdown by the Hanging Paragraph of Section 1325 of the Bankruptcy Code.

In re: Rose

Wed, 7 Oct 2009 20:00:02 PDT

(U.S. 7th Cir., Bankruptcy Law, Civil Procedure, Remedies) In Mercantile National Bank of Indiana's claim under Indiana's Crime Victims' Compensation Act (CVCA) against debtor, which allows a person who suffers pecuniary loss as a result of certain property crimes to seek treble damages and attorneys' fees, district court's judgment affirming bankruptcy court's dismissal of the CVCA claim is reversed as Mercantile properly commenced its CVCA claim within the statute of limitations where it was not filed to enforce the previous judgment but rather to seek damages based on a new cause of action.

In re: Greene

Mon, 5 Oct 2009 20:00:03 PDT

(U.S. 9th Cir., Bankruptcy Law, Property Law & Real Estate) In debtor's appeal from the district court's order affirming a bankruptcy court's decision limiting the debtor's homestead exemption in his bankruptcy petition to $125,000 pursuant to 11 U.S.C. section 522(p), the order is affirmed in part where no pre-petition appreciation of the property at issue occurred. However, the order is reversed in part where "any amount of interest that was acquired," as used in section 522(p)(1), meant the acquisition of ownership of real property and the monetary cap in section 522(p) did not apply to property to which a debtor acquired title more than 1215 days before she or he filed a bankruptcy petition.

Tam Travel, Inc. v. Delta Airlines, Inc.

Fri, 2 Oct 2009 20:00:03 PDT

(U.S. 6th Cir., Antitrust & Trade Regulation, Bankruptcy Law, Commercial Law) In plaintiff-travel agencies' lawsuit under section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act alleging a conspiracy to eliminate the practice of paying base commissions by various airlines, district court's dismissal of the amended complaint is affirmed, as the plaintiffs' claims against United Airlines were discharged in bankruptcy and the claims against the remaining defendants failed to allege sufficient facts to plausibly suggest a prior illegal agreement.

Sternberg v. Johnston

Thu, 1 Oct 2009 20:00:03 PDT

(U.S. 9th Cir., Attorney's Fees, Bankruptcy Law, Debt Collection, Remedies) In an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court for violation of an automatic stay, judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where plaintiff violated his duty to ensure that his actions did not prolong a violation of the stay that resulted from a state court motion seeking relief against defendant that plaintiff filed prior to the bankruptcy. However, the damages award entered by the district court is vacated where defendant could recover as actual damages only those attorney's fees related to enforcing the automatic stay and remedying the stay violation, not the fees incurred in prosecuting the bankruptcy adversary proceeding in which he pursued his claim for those damages.

Orange Cty. Water Dist. v. Unocal Corp.

Thu, 1 Oct 2009 20:00:03 PDT

(U.S. 2d Cir., Bankruptcy Law, Civil Procedure, Environmental Law, Oil & Gas Law, Per Curiam, Public Utilities) In a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the district court's order denying petitioner's motion to remand the action to state court, the petition is denied where: 1) the court of appeals' prior opinion did not preclude the district court's conclusion that petitioners failed to file a timely motion for remand, because the purportedly erroneous removal under 28 U.S.C. section 1452(a) did not implicate the district court's subject matter jurisdiction; and 2) any challenge to the district court's subject matter jurisdiction was best addressed on direct appeal, rather than by a writ of mandamus.