Recent Cases
Edwards Family Partnership LP v. Johnson (In re Community Home Financial Services Inc.)
Edwards Family Partnership LP v. Johnson (In re Community Home Financial Services Inc.), ___F.3d___ (5th Circuit Court of Appeal, 3/5/21) appeal no. 20-60718: This is an additional Circuit holding that Trustees have standing to appeal, even if the Trustee has no pecuniary interest in the ruling being appealed. Cites 9th Circuit, 1st Circuit and 6th Circuit decisions that recognize “the inadequacy of a pecuniary-interest test for trustee standing.” Also cites a Fourth Circuit decision that says a trustee never has a pecuniary interest. Decision says that the Fifth Circuit had “implicitly recognized” the same principle. Decision observes that a “trustee’s…
In re Ritter, ___BR___ , 2021 WL 864092 (Bankr. C.D. CA 3/5/21)
In re Ritter, ___BR___ , 2021 WL 864092 (Bankr. C.D. CA 3/5/21). Analyzing the application of the new Chapter 13 discharge provision passed by Congress on December 27, 2020 as part of the coronavirus emergency response legislation, section 1328(i), a bankruptcy court in the Central District of California ruled, in In re Ritter, that in order to receive a “Covid-19 Discharge”, debtors must still comply with all the other provisions of section 1328 (a)–(h). Meeting only the requirements of section 1328(i) will not result in a discharge. FACTS Debtors James and Debra Ritter filed a chapter 13 petition on July…
In re Jesslyn Anderson, ___F3d___ (9th Circuit Court of Appeals 3/1/21), appeal number 20-60014
Can be thought of as standing for the proposition that a Chapter 7 bankruptcy is a “snapshot” of the debtor’s situation on the day the debtor files the debtor’s chapter 7 bankruptcy case, and that things that happen AFTER the debtor files the debtor’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy case do not matter. Ruling: A chapter 7 debtor retains her Washington state homestead exemption even if she moves out of the house after the filing of the bankruptcy case and does not re-occupy or file a declaration of abandonment within six months after vacating the house. Chapter 7 involves a “snapshot” of…
Archer-Daniels Midland Co. v. Country Visions Cooperative
Below is a District Court decision, important because it refused to uphold sale of real property through confirmed ch11 plan, in violation of secured creditor’s recorded ROFR, where insufficient notice of bky given to secured creditor by debtor’s atty Archer-Daniels Midland Co. v. Country Visions Cooperative, ( District Court E.D. Wis. Feb. 19, 2021), appeal 17-0313 from US Bankruptcy Court decision to US District Court US Supreme Court Espinosa Decision Doesn’t Forgive All Procedural Defects in Confirmation, District Judge Ludwig Says. To sell free and clear, someone with an interest in the property must receive the notice required for service…
GLM DWF Inc. v. Windstream Holdings Inc. (In re Windstream Holdings Inc.)
GLM DWF Inc. v. Windstream Holdings Inc. (In re Windstream Holdings Inc.), ___F.3d___appeal 20-1275 (2d Cir. Feb. 18, 2021): 2nd circuit court of appeals equitable mootness decision described by ABI as making it impossible to review critical vendor orders, after a ch 11 plan is confirmed. An appeal from a critical vendor order was dismissed as equitably moot. By invoking equitable mootness, the Second Circuit has made a critical vendor order virtually unreviewable after confirmation of a chapter 11 plan. In chapter 11, the debtor prevailed on the bankruptcy court to approve a so-called critical vendor motion, allowing full payment…
Radiance Capital Receivables Nineteen LLC v. Crow (In re Crow)
Radiance Capital Receivables Nineteen LLC v. Crow (In re Crow), ___F.3rd___ (10th Cir. Feb. 12, 2021). Appeal case number 19-8082: 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2 to 1 decision, holds that an Order holding an asset to be exempt is a final order (as to which Notice of Appeal must be filed within 14 days after Order is entered, or right to appeal is lost), even though the Order does NOT state what dollar amount of the asset in question is held to be exempt. Tenth Circuit majority believes that the grant or denial of an exemption is…
Consol Energy Inc. v. Murray Energy Holdings Co. (In re Murray Energy Holdings Co.), ___BR___ (B.A.P. 6th Cir. Feb. 1, 2021), BAP case number 20-8017
6th Circuit BAP Adheres to ‘Person Aggrieved’ standard for who has standing to appeal, despite dicta from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeal. May develop into a “Circuit Split” with 6th Circuit on one side, and with Ninth and Third Circuits on the other side. The Supreme Court and the Sixth Circuit both questioned the continuing validity of doctrines of prudential standing, such as ‘person aggrieved.’ The Sixth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel enforced the “person aggrieved” rule for appellate standing, even though more recent Supreme Court authority could be read to mean that “prudential standing” doctrines are headed for extinction.…
Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. as Tr. for Holders of BCAP LLC Tr. 2007-AA1 . v. Madeira Canyon Homeowners Ass’n
Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co. as Tr. for Holders of BCAP LLC Tr. 2007-AA1 . v. Madeira Canyon Homeowners Ass’n, 819 F. App’x 565, 566 (9th Cir. 2020): United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reiterated the precept that creditors lack standing to challenge violations of the automatic stay in the Ninth Circuit. FACTS: Plaintiff, Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (“Deutsche Bank”), sued Defendant, Madeira Canyon Homeowners Association (“Madeira”), in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, in order to set aside a foreclosure sale, contending that the sale violated the automatic stay in an…
In re Claar Cellars LLC, ___BR___ (Bankr. E.D. Wash. Jan. 14, 2021), case No. 20-00044
Bky Ct Washington decision refused to confirm a debtor’s proposed chapter 11 plan that promised to pay creditors 100% in 5 years, but lacked specifics to prove that was going to happen. In addition, debtor’s proposed plan had the problem of providing for “de facto” third party release, has discussion of Blixeth 9th Cir decision limited circumstances where a plan can release a non-debtor third party, without consent of creditors. Detail as reported by ABI (American Bankruptcy Institute): Debtor’s ch11 plan Promising Payment in Full to Everyone Doesn’t Warrant Confirmation by Itself, and there was a competing creditor proposed ch…
Rodriguez v. Mukamal, ___BR___ (US District Court, SD Fla Oct. 1, 2020), case number 20-50583
US District Court affirmed US Bankruptcy Court decision, to hold that the bankruptcy debtors (who voluntarily converted their chapter 13 bankruptcy case to chapter 7) could not claim a homestead exemption in a home they did not own on the date they filed their Chapter 13 bankruptcy case, even though they did own the home (which they inherited) on the date they converted their Chapter 13 case to Chapter 7. Detail: US District Court, SD Florida, held Chapter 13 debtors lost an exemption they claimed in a home they inherited, when they converted their Chapter 13 case to Chapter 7,…