Justia U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Utica’s subsidiary, Republic, hired Sheppard’s law firm to pursue a subrogation action. Settlement proceeds totaling $145,000.00 were entrusted to the law firm; Sheppard was the managing partner. Republic was entitled to $130,740.03; that award was not distributed. Republic retained the Lewis, law firm to recover the money. The parties reached a settlement agreement; $60,000.00, was due in November 2013 and $70,740.03, was to be paid in December 2013. Payments were to be made to the Utica Atlanta regional office, which had originally worked with Sheppard and handles claims relating to member companies, including Republic. Sheppard’s portion, $30,000.00, was not received. In February 2014, Sheppard filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy. UTICA is listed as a creditor,with the address of its New York home office. The Bankruptcy Court mailed notice to all creditors of the May 30, 2014 date by which creditors had to file a complaint or challenge the dischargeability of certain debts. No notice was sent to Lewis or Republic. On May 21, 2014 Lewis sued Sheppard in Tennessee State Court, unaware of the pending bankruptcy. Lewis received notice of the bankruptcy on May 28, and, on May 29, filed a timely motion to extend the deadline. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reversed denial of the motion, finding sufficient “cause” to justify extension under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 4004 and 4007(c). View "In re: Sheppard" on Justia Law

The debtors owned a house in Michigan; in 2007, it was foreclosed and sold at a sheriff’s sale. In 2008, they filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy, but did not disclose any interest in the house or any related cause of action. The redemption period for the house expired after the bankruptcy petition date. The case was converted to a chapter 7 proceeding. The debtors received a discharge. The bankruptcy case closed in February 2009. In March, the debtors filed suit in state court, alleging that the foreclosure was defective, but never sought to reopen their bankruptcy case to amend their schedules. Learning about the case, the trustee claimed that the cause of action was bankruptcy estate property. The bankruptcy court reopened in 2013. The debtors filed an amended schedule that disclosed the claim, stating a value of $3 million. Each debtor claimed a “wildcard” exemption of $5,300.00, 11 U.S.C. 522(d)(5). The bankruptcy court approved settlement of the case and denied the trustee’s objection to the exemptions. The district court affirmed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, citing the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision that a bankruptcy court may not use equitable powers to deny an exemption as a sanction for debtor misconduct, and noting that the trustee’s objection to timeliness was waived. View "Ellmann v. Baker" on Justia Law

In 1988 Sutherland received breast implants in North Carolina. She filed suit in North Carolina five years later, after learning that the silicone in her implants could be causing a variety of serious medical problems. The Silicone’s manufacturer, Dow Corning, filed for bankruptcy in Michigan, and Sutherland’s suit was transferred there. In 2012, 24 years after Sutherland received the implants, the district court concluded that Sutherland’s claim was barred by Michigan’s statute of limitations and granted summary judgment to the defendant. The Sixth Circuit reversed, reasoning that the district court should have applied North Carolina’s law instead of Michigan’s, and should have concluded that there was a genuine factual issue as to whether Sutherland’s claim was timely-filed under North Carolina law. View "Sutherland v. DCC Litig. Facility, Inc." on Justia Law

Claimants filed a $2,142,000 non-priority unsecured proof of claim in jointly administered Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases. That claim was disallowed by the bankruptcy court; the district court and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. As a result of the multitude of filings, strategies employed and positions taken over a six year period, the bankruptcy court sanctioned the attorney, Grossman, the sum of $207,004 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1927 and the court’s inherent authority under 11 U.S.C. 105, representing the attorney fees expended by counsel for the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors and, post-confirmation, the Liquidation Trustee and his counsel, directly or indirectly related to the claim litigation. Grossman appealed the sanction and an order denying a motion which sought the recusal of the bankruptcy judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 455. In a separate appeal, Grossman challenged the retention of special counsel to collect the judgment against him and an order requiring him to submit to a debtor’s examination and provide written discovery. Consolidating the appeals, the Sixth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed. Grossman vexatiously pursued arguments and filed documents throughout the litigation that were frivolous; his claims about the judge were misstatements. View "In re: Royal Manor Mgmt., Inc." on Justia Law

The Borrower defaulted on a nonrecourse Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities (CMBS) loan secured by property located in Detroit. CMBS loans are packaged as a trust to attract investors; in return for nonrecourse liability, CMBA borrowers promise to refrain from certain financial behavior likely to increase the risk of default and bankruptcy; the loan at issue included a solvency clause. Michigan’s 2012 Nonrecourse Mortgage Loan Act applies retroactively to render solvency covenants in nonrecourse loans unenforceable, declaring them “an unfair and deceptive business practice . . . against public policy [that] should not be enforced.” The lender foreclosed. Purchaser bought the property at auction with a winning bid of $756,000, and, standing in the lender’s shoes and citing the solvency clause, sued Borrower and its guarantor to collect a $6 million deficiency. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Borrower. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, agreeing that that the NMLA: rendered the solvency covenant in Borrower’s CMBS loan unenforceable; violated neither the Contract nor Due Process Clauses of the United States and Michigan Constitutions; and comported with Michigan’s constitutional provision mandating the separation of governmental powers. View "Borman, LLC v. 18718 Borman, LLC" on Justia Law

The bankruptcy court imposed sanctions against attorneys stemming from their representation of Debtors in an adversary proceeding in which a creditor and the Trustee sought denial of discharge. The attorney filed notice of appeal regarding the July 16 sanctions order on July 30. On August 1, the bankruptcy court entered an Order Setting Amount of Additional Sanctions. On August 5, the bankruptcy court amended its August 1, order and imposed additional sanctions under 28 U.S.C. 1927, covering attorney fees and expenses incurred by the Trustee and creditor in the adversary proceeding. An August 27 motion to dismiss asserted that the July 16 order was not final and that cause did not exist to allow appeal from an interlocutory order. A September 8 amended motion for leave to appeal and corrected notice of appeal indicated an appeal of all three sanctions orders. In response, a motion to strike asserted failure to timely perfect appeal from the August 1 or August 5 orders. The Sixth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate panel denied the motions to dismiss and to strike, holding that it had jurisdiction because the amount of sanctions was set forth in a final order. Notice of appeal was timely filed. Resolution of the sanctions issue will have no discernable impact on the pending discharge issue. View "In re: Blasingame" on Justia Law

Under a 2007 “Purchase Agreement – Public Sale” Eagle agreed to pay $4,812,874.65 to purchase Louisville property owned by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet. Eagle paid a good faith deposit of $962,574.93 to “KY STATE TREASURER.” The Agreement was assigned by Eagle to Shelbyville Road Shoppes, the debtor. Two days before the expiration of an 18-month extension to close the transaction, the debtor filed a voluntary Chapter 7 petition. The bankruptcy trustee unsuccessfully sought return of the good faith deposit from the Cabinet. The bankruptcy court found that neither the Agreement nor state law granted the debtor the right to have the deposit returned. The district court affirmed, finding: that the debtor had no right to possess or use the deposit prior to filing for relief, so the trustee had no right to request turnover under section 542; that the deposit was not held in escrow; that the transaction was not a contract for deed; and that the debtor did not retain an equitable right to the deposit as a vendee. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. The debtor did not possess either a legal or an equitable property interest in the deposit at the time of the Chapter 7 petition. View "Lawrence v. Kentucky" on Justia Law

Debtor had significant financial problems. Morris, Debtor's principal, formed ECM on January 1, 2010, had the Debtor grant him a security interest in its assets, and recorded the financing statement on January 5. On January 10, Morris executed a bill of sale transferring his security interest to ECM. On July 27, 2010, the Debtor, through Morris, voluntarily surrendered its assets to ECM. Before the bankruptcy, the creditors filed state court actions, alleging successor liability, fraudulent transfer, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty. The Debtor filed a voluntary Chapter 7 petition in 2012. The Chapter 7 Trustee filed an adversary proceeding to avoid fraudulent transfers. The Bankruptcy Court approved a settlement and dismissed “without prejudice.” The Trustee filed his Final Account and Distribution Report. The Debtor, as a corporation, did not receive a discharge. After the bankruptcy proceedings were completed, creditors reactivated their state court litigation. The Bankruptcy Court declined to enjoin the state proceedings. The Sixth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed. There is no reason the state court should not determine the preclusive effect of the Bankruptcy Court’s order, just as bankruptcy courts are regularly called upon to determine the preclusive effect of state court judgments in bankruptcy. View "In re: E.C. Morris Corp.." on Justia Law

Debtors filed their bankruptcy petition on July 30, 2013. The first date set for the meeting of creditors was August 29, 2013. Under 11 U.S.C. 523(c), the deadline for objecting to discharge was October 28. On October 29, Creditor filed an Extension Motion, alleging that his counsel had suffered a disabling brain injury in a car wreck on September 4 and had hired a newparalegal “on or about” the week of the deadline. Following a hearing, the bankruptcy court “agreed” that it “does not have the discretion to grant the requested extension” but also stated that “the deadline governing the filing of dischargeability complaints is not jurisdictional in nature, but rather, is subject to the court’s equitable authority.” In denying the Extension Motion, it found that there was “no allegation that the Debtor engaged in any conduct which prevented the Creditor from filing a timely motion to extend the time within which to file a dischargeability complaint.” After the Creditor filed deficient briefing, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed denial of the Extension Motion. The court noted that Creditor’s counsel had not provided any facts to support his claims. View "In re: Doyne" on Justia Law

Bavelis sought Chapter 11 bankruptcy relief in 2010, based on debts that he had accumulated from numerous business ventures. Bavelis subsequently brought an adversary proceeding against his friend and business associate Doukas, and businesses owned and controlled by Doukas. One Doukas company responded by filing a proof of claim against the Bavelis bankruptcy estate. The Doukas defendants argued that Doukas had a claim for rescission against Bavelis based on purported violations of Florida’s securities laws related to stock that Doukas had purchased from a Bavelis-run bank holding company. The bankruptcy court concluded that Doukas did not have a viable claim against Bavelis under Florida law. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the bankruptcy court acted beyond its constitutional authority in interpreting Florida law and that the interpretations by the bankruptcy court and the BAP were in error. View "Bavelis v. Doukas" on Justia Law