Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Charles Erwin appeals from an amended judgment entered in favor of Alerus Financial, N.A., for $5,265,653.09. Starting in 2012 Alerus made a series of loans totaling more than $15 million to Diverse Energy Systems, LLC. The loan agreement specified "Events of Default," including the failure to pay the indebtedness, the insolvency of the borrower or guarantor or the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings. Erwin was Diverse's chief executive officer, and he signed multiple personal guaranties, promising to be personally responsible for payment of up to $4 million of Diverse's debt owed to Alerus. In September 2015 Diverse filed for bankruptcy. In May 2016 Alerus sued Erwin for breach of contract and unjust enrichment, alleging Diverse was in default under the loan agreement and Erwin failed to make payment on the amount due under the guaranties. Alerus alleged Diverse's indebtedness exceeded $12 million and under the guaranties Erwin was liable for at least $4 million in principal and interest. On September 6, 2016, Erwin filed an answer to Alerus' complaint. Alerus moved for summary judgment, arguing Diverse defaulted on its loan obligations and Erwin breached the guaranty contracts by failing to pay the amounts due under the guaranties. Alerus also filed an affidavit in support of its motion from an Alerus employee, which it claimed showed the total outstanding principal and interest on the loans to Diverse. Erwin argued on appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court the district court abused its discretion by failing to rule on his motion to amend his answer and entering judgment without allowing him to conduct discovery on Alerus' damage claims. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the amended judgment. View "Alerus Financial, N.A. v. Erwin" on Justia Law

In Jansen’s bankruptcy case, Gleason brought an adversary proceeding, 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(2)(A), regarding a default judgment ($400,000) obtained in a case involving a phony investment scheme. Gleason unsuccessfully argued that Jansen was not entitled to relitigate that judgment. A bench trial revealed that Gleason gave $141,000 to Jansen’s company, Baytree, for closing costs in a business acquisition. The deal never closed and Jansen never fully refunded the money. Gleason’s checks, endorsed by “Talcott Financial … D/B/A Baytree,” were deposited, then disappeared. Jansen later pleaded guilty to unrelated money-skimming charges, involving a bank account in the name of Talcott Financial, which was involuntarily dissolved in 1999. Jansen testified that the “Talcotts” were two different businesses with separate accounts. The bankruptcy court credited Jansen’s story and concluded the debt was dischargeable. Meanwhile, Jansen tried to withdraw his guilty plea. Despite a warning that invoking the privilege against self-incrimination could lead to an adverse inference for bankruptcy purposes, Jansen asserted that privilege repeatedly. Gleason filed the “merits appeal,” then found publicly-available records in previous litigation, including bank statements. The bankruptcy court declined Gleason's motion for relief from the judgment, reasoning the evidence, easily found on PACER, was not new. Gleason then filed a “Rule 60 appeal.” After procedural confusion, during which the merits appeal was dismissed, the district court and Seventh Circuit affirmed. The district court’s mistaken assumption that it could reach the merits of the case in the later-filed Rule 60 appeal is not enough to revive the dismissed merits appeal. View "Gleason v. Jansen" on Justia Law

At issue in this case was whether substantial evidence was presented in support of the objection as a matter of law sufficient to rebut the Internal Revenue Service’s (“IRS”) proof of claim. Debtors-appellees Scott and Anna Austin filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code with the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in 2014. In their schedules, the Austins listed two pending worker’s compensation claims as contingent and unliquidated exempt property. These claims were valued at $0.00 or an “unknown value.” The Austins listed the IRS as a secured creditor. The IRS filed proof of claim no. 5-1, asserting in part a secured claim as a result of a tax lien. The Austins objected to the amount of the IRS’s priority claim (“January Objection”), arguing that no value should be attributable to their worker’s compensation claims in determining the secured portion of the IRS’s claim. They also argued, in the alternative, that since there were neither settlement offers nor a basis to determine the value of the worker’s compensation claims, the present value of the worker’s compensation claims should be $0. The Bankruptcy Court overruled the Austins’ January Objection, finding they failed to meet their burden to produce substantial evidence to rebut the IRS’s claim. The Bankruptcy Court disagreed the worker’s compensation claims had no value. In the meantime, the Austins negotiated a settlement of the worker’s compensation claims for $21,448.80. After attorneys’ fees, the Austins received a net settlement of $15,661.60. The IRS learned of the settlement, and filed an amended claim, No. 5-3, which included as part of its secured claim the amount of $15,661.60 for the value of the settlement. The Austins again objected to the IRS’s claim, filing an affidavit their worker’s compensation attorney, who opined that the worker’s compensation claims had a “nuisance” value of $3,000.00 on the petition date. The IRS argued that the affidavit was not substantial evidence sufficient to overcome the prima facie validity of the IRS’s claim. The Bankruptcy Court ruled that the affidavit was “substantial evidence” of the value of the claims, sufficient to rebut the prima facie validity of the IRS’ claim. The Bankruptcy Court therefore sustained the Austins’ objection and valued the worker’s compensation claims at $3,000, and reduced the IRS’s secured claim by $12,661.00. Based on its de novo review of the record, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel found the Austins failed to present substantial evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of the validity and amount of the IRS’s proof of claim. Therefore, their objection to claim should have been overruled. View "United States v. Austin" on Justia Law

Appellees filed a state court action, alleging that Peace caused property damage when he interfered with the water flow to the Appellees' Cleves, Ohio property. That lawsuit was stayed when Peace filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. Appellees had already hired Abercrombie to provide an expert report, which was filed in the state litigation. After Peace’s bankruptcy filing, Appellees filed an adversary proceeding under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(6), alleging that Peace owed them a non-dischargeable debt. The bankruptcy court agreed. Peace filed an untimely notice of appeal. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel dismissed. Peace filed a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment, asserting that Appellees’ expert witness, Abercrombie, committed fraud by giving false testimony and that Peace’s discovery that Abercrombie’s data sources were nonexistent was “new evidence.” The bankruptcy court denied the motion as untimely and stated that Peace failed to show that his evidence could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence and there was no clear proof that Abercrombie’s testimony was false. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed. Peace made substantially similar arguments to the bankruptcy court in his initial post-trial brief. The bankruptcy court acted within its discretion in treating the motion as an attempt to relitigate issues previously decided and as an improper substitute for an appeal. View "In re Peace" on Justia Law

Appellees filed a state court action, alleging that Peace caused property damage when he interfered with the water flow to the Appellees' Cleves, Ohio property. That lawsuit was stayed when Peace filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. Appellees had already hired Abercrombie to provide an expert report, which was filed in the state litigation. After Peace’s bankruptcy filing, Appellees filed an adversary proceeding under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(6), alleging that Peace owed them a non-dischargeable debt. The bankruptcy court agreed. Peace filed an untimely notice of appeal. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel dismissed. Peace filed a Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment, asserting that Appellees’ expert witness, Abercrombie, committed fraud by giving false testimony and that Peace’s discovery that Abercrombie’s data sources were nonexistent was “new evidence.” The bankruptcy court denied the motion as untimely and stated that Peace failed to show that his evidence could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence and there was no clear proof that Abercrombie’s testimony was false. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed. Peace made substantially similar arguments to the bankruptcy court in his initial post-trial brief. The bankruptcy court acted within its discretion in treating the motion as an attempt to relitigate issues previously decided and as an improper substitute for an appeal. View "In re Peace" on Justia Law

Lakeridge. a corporation with a single owner (MBP), filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, owing U.S. Bank $10 million and MBP $2.76 million. Lakeridge submitted a reorganization plan, proposing to impair the interests of both. U.S. Bank refused, blocking Lakeridge’s reorganization through a consensual plan, 11 U.S.C. 1129(a)(8). Lakeridge then turned to a “cramdown” plan, which would require consent by an impaired class of creditors that is not an “insider” of the debtor. An insider “includes” any director, officer, or “person in control” of the entity. MBP, unable to provide the needed consent, sought to transfer its claim to a non-insider. Bartlett, an MBP board member and Lakeridge officer, offered MBP’s claim to Rabkin for $5,000. Rabkin purchased the claim and consented to Lakeridge’s proposed reorganization. U.S. Bank objected, arguing that Rabkin was a nonstatutory insider because he had a “romantic” relationship with Bartlett. The Bankruptcy Court, Ninth Circuit, and Supreme Court rejected that argument. The Ninth Circuit correctly reviewed the Bankruptcy Court’s determination for clear error (rather than de novo), as “mixed question” of law and fact: whether the findings of fact satisfy the legal test for conferring non-statutory insider status. The standard of review for a mixed question depends on whether answering it entails primarily legal or factual work. Using the Ninth Circuit’s legal test for identifying such insiders (whether the transaction was conducted at arm’s length, i.e., as though the parties were strangers) the mixed question became: Given all the basic facts, was Rabkin’s purchase of MBP’s claim conducted as if the two were strangers? Such an inquiry primarily belongs in the court that has presided over the presentation of evidence, i.e., the bankruptcy court. View "U. S. Bank N. A. v. Village at Lakeridge, LLC" on Justia Law

After a Montana state court issued a series of judgments against Donald Tangwall and his family, the family members transferred two pieces of property to the “Toni 1 Trust,” a trust allegedly created under Alaska law. A Montana state court and an Alaska bankruptcy court found that the transfers were made to avoid the judgments and were therefore fraudulent. Tangwall, the trustee of the Trust, then filed this suit, arguing that Alaska state courts have exclusive jurisdiction over such fraudulent transfer actions under AS 34.40.110(k). The Alaska Supreme Court concluded this statute could not unilaterally deprive other state and federal courts of jurisdiction, therefore it affirmed dismissal of Tangwall’s complaint. View "Toni 1 Trust v. Wacker" on Justia Law

After a Montana state court issued a series of judgments against Donald Tangwall and his family, the family members transferred two pieces of property to the “Toni 1 Trust,” a trust allegedly created under Alaska law. A Montana state court and an Alaska bankruptcy court found that the transfers were made to avoid the judgments and were therefore fraudulent. Tangwall, the trustee of the Trust, then filed this suit, arguing that Alaska state courts have exclusive jurisdiction over such fraudulent transfer actions under AS 34.40.110(k). The Alaska Supreme Court concluded this statute could not unilaterally deprive other state and federal courts of jurisdiction, therefore it affirmed dismissal of Tangwall’s complaint. View "Toni 1 Trust v. Wacker" on Justia Law

SPV, the assignee of Optimal Strategic, filed suit against UBS and its affiliated entities and individuals (collectively, Access), alleging that UBS and Access aided and abetted the Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC and Bernard L. Madoff by sponsoring and providing support for two European-based feeder funds. The district court subsequently denied SPV's motion to remand the matter to state court and then granted separate motions to dismiss the complaint. The Second Circuit held that it had jurisdiction over this appeal; this litigation was "related to" the Madoff/BLMIS bankruptcies; the USB defendants lacked sufficient contacts with the United States to allow the exercise of general jurisdiction; the connections between the USB Defendants, SPV's claims, and its chosen New York forum were too tenuous to support the exercise of specific jurisdiction; and the court rejected SPV's two different theories of proximate cause. View "SPV OSUS Ltd. v. UBS AG" on Justia Law

SPV, the assignee of Optimal Strategic, filed suit against UBS and its affiliated entities and individuals (collectively, Access), alleging that UBS and Access aided and abetted the Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC and Bernard L. Madoff by sponsoring and providing support for two European-based feeder funds. The district court subsequently denied SPV's motion to remand the matter to state court and then granted separate motions to dismiss the complaint. The Second Circuit held that it had jurisdiction over this appeal; this litigation was "related to" the Madoff/BLMIS bankruptcies; the USB defendants lacked sufficient contacts with the United States to allow the exercise of general jurisdiction; the connections between the USB Defendants, SPV's claims, and its chosen New York forum were too tenuous to support the exercise of specific jurisdiction; and the court rejected SPV's two different theories of proximate cause. View "SPV OSUS Ltd. v. UBS AG" on Justia Law