Case Summaries
Bankruptcy Law [03/11] Overbaugh v. Household Bank N.A.
In a bankruptcy action, district court's denial of plaintiffs' motion to reclassify a claim of defendant from secured to unsecured is affirmed where: 1) a Chapter 13 trustee has standing to object to a motion to reclassify a claim; and 2) plaintiffs' motion to reclassify defendant's secured claim was properly denied as defendant had perfected a purchase money security interest in the secured claim pursuant to the terms of New York's UCC. [03/06] CIT Small Bus. Lending Corp. v. Kendrick
In an action to avoid a mortgage as a preferential transfer, Defendant's appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, where the District Court had remanded the matter to the Bankruptcy Court to determine the preferential transfer issue and thus there was no final order. [02/25] Ennis v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC
On appeal from a sustained objection to a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan, the Bankruptcy Court's order is reversed, where Debtors' mobile home was not "real property" under 11 U.S.C. section 1322(b)(2) and Creditor's secured claim on it thus could be modified. [02/24] Saudi Amer. Bank v. Shaw Group, Inc.
In a bankruptcy action, district court's grant of plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is affirmed in part and reversed and remanded where: 1) district court did not err in holding that plaintiff had standing to bring a claim as a third party to the purchase agreement; and 2) summary judgment in favor of plaintiff was not proper as the guaranty and payment letter were excluded liabilities for which defendant was not responsible because they were associated with the in-kingdom project's listing as an excluded special project claim. The order awarding plaintiff pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and other costs of litigation is vacated. [02/23] McKay v. Ingleson
In an appeal from a bankruptcy proceeding alleging violation of a discharge injunction, dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint is affirmed, where her financial arrangement with her university constituted a non-dischargeable educational loan. [02/23] Simpson v. Burkart
In an appeal from a Bankruptcy Court order that Debtor's single-premium annuity was not exempt property, the order is affirmed, where Cal. Civ. Proc. Code section 704.100(a) exempted only life insurance from the bankruptcy estate. [02/19] Lewellen v. Wildlife Farms II, LLC
In a bankruptcy action, the order imposing monetary sanctions against plaintiff is affirmed where the sanction was warranted by the facts of the case and imposed in compliance with applicable legal standards. [02/19] Acosta-Rivera v. Segarra-Miranda
In a bankruptcy action, a district court order overruling the bankruptcy court decision's to excuse non-disclosure of financial information after expiration of the filing deadline is reversed. The bankruptcy court has the discretion to waive the financial disclosure requirement after the expiration of the filing deadline where there is no continuing need for the information or a waiver is needed to prevent automatic dismissal from furthering a debtor's abusive conduct. [02/11] Nat'l Gas Distributors, LLC v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co.
In claim brought by plaintiff-national gas distributor against defendants-three of plaintiff's customers to avoid numerous natural gas supply contracts entered into with the customers during the year before plaintiff's bankruptcy petition was filed, judgment in favor plaintiff is reversed and remanded where: 1) the grounds given by the bankruptcy court in finding that the contracts at issue were not swap agreements were not supported by the definition of "swap agreement" in 11 U.S.C. section 101(53B); 2) the bankruptcy court construed "commodity forward agreements" too narrowly; and 3) in defining a "commodity forward agreement", bankruptcy court is precluded from requiring that contract be traded in a market or on an exchange or that it not involve physical delivery of the commodity. [02/10] Sofris v. Maple-Whitworth, Inc.
An award of attorney's fees and costs after an involuntary bankruptcy petition is affirmed in part where the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding fees and costs against one petitioner even though it applied the wrong standard. The award is reversed in part and remanded where the district court failed to rule on whether the debtor waived its right to fees and costs. [01/22] US v. Middlebrook
Defendant's sentence and restitution order for bankruptcy fraud are affirmed. The District Court properly based the sentence on the loss Defendant intended to cause through his fraud, under U.S.S.G. section 2B1(b)(1). More...
Property Law & Real Estate [03/10] Wolfchild v. US
In an action involving Native American lands, trials court's order is reversed where: 1) neither the Appropriations Acts of 1888, 1889 and 1890 or the conduct of the Interior Department created a trust relationship through which the 1886 Mdewakantons and their descendants obtained beneficial ownership rights in the 1886 lands; and 2) Congress' enactment of the 1980 Act giving political control to the Mdewakanton communities over all the property within the communities that had been set aside for Indians terminated any trust that may have been created by the Appropriations Acts. [03/06] Wolff v. Westwood Mgmt., LLC
In an action for breach of fiduciary duty, the dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where Plaintiff's claims were covered by a mandatory arbitration clause, and even though the agreement containing the clause had expired, the dispute arose out of the agreement. [03/06] CIT Small Bus. Lending Corp. v. Kendrick
In an action to avoid a mortgage as a preferential transfer, Defendant's appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, where the District Court had remanded the matter to the Bankruptcy Court to determine the preferential transfer issue and thus there was no final order. [03/04] US v. Dunn
In an action by the U.S. to quiet title to land, the District Court's denial of Defendants' motion to stay is affirmed, where the land was not "public land" for which a patent could be issued. The District Court's decision that Defendants possessed use rights in the land is reversed, where the deeds to the land did not confer such rights. [03/04] Canada Life Assur. v. LaPeter
In an appeal from the District Court's appointment of a receiver to manage a mall owned by Defendants, the order is affirmed where: 1) federal law governs the appointment of a receiver where jurisdiction is based on diversity; and 2) District Courts may consider a broad range of factors in determining whether to appoint a receiver. [03/04] Canada Life Assur. v. LaPeter
In an appeal from the District Court's appointment of a receiver to manage a mall owned by Defendants, the order is affirmed where: 1) federal law governs the appointment of a receiver where jurisdiction is based on diversity; and 2) District Courts may consider a broad range of factors in determining whether to appoint a receiver. [03/03] Summers v. Earth Island Inst.
In an action challenging Forest Service regulations exempting certain land management activities from the agency's review process, an injunction against the regulations is reversed where Plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the regulations absent a live dispute over a concrete application of those regulations. [02/25] Pleasant Grove City v. Summum
In a First Amendment action claiming that Plaintiff was entitled to place a monument in a public park where Defendant city had allowed other monuments, denial of a preliminary injunction is affirmed, where placement of a permanent monument in a public park is a form of government speech and is therefore not subject to scrutiny under the Free Speech Clause. [02/24] Carcieri v. Salazar
In a challenge to the Interior Secretary's holding of lands in trust for Indians under 25 U.S.C. section 465, judgment for Defendants is reversed, where the term "now under federal jurisdiction" refers to a tribe that was under federal jurisdiction at the time of the statute's enactment. [02/24] Johnson v. Washington
In an action alleging violation of consumer protection laws based on the sale of Plaintiffs' home, summary judgment for Defendants is affirmed, where such laws did not apply because the sale did not create an equitable mortgage under Virginia law. [02/23] Hensley v. Columbus
In an action alleging an unconstitutional taking of property, the dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims is affirmed, where Plaintiffs knew of the taking more than two years before filing suit, and thus the statute of limitations expired. More... | 
