News

Case Summaries

Bankruptcy Law

[03/08] Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. US
In an action by a law firm seeking declaratory relief, arguing that plaintiff was not bound by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act's (BAPCPA) debt relief agency provisions and therefore could freely advise clients to incur additional debt and need not make the requisite disclosures in its advertisements, the Eighth Circuit's order rejecting the district court's conclusion that attorneys are not "debt relief agencies" under BAPCPA, upholding application of BAPCPA's disclosure requirements to attorneys, and finding BAPCPA section 526(a)(4) unconstitutional, is affirmed in part where: 1) attorneys who provided bankruptcy assistance to assisted persons were debt relief agencies under the BAPCPA; and 2) BAPCPA section 528's requirements were reasonably related to the government's interest in preventing consumer deception. However, the court of appeals' order is reversed in part where BAPCPA section 526(a)(4) prohibited a debt relief agency only from advising a debtor to incur more debt because the debtor was filing for bankruptcy, rather than for a valid purpose.

[03/08] In Re: Ray
District court's judgment affirming the bankruptcy court's dismissal of two Chapter 11 proceedings was correct, but the decision is vacated, as the law firm lacked standing where there is no evidence that one of the law firm's former attorneys ever informed the bankruptcy court that it was appearing on behalf of the firm and the record is devoid of any mention of the firm by the attorney or any other party.

[02/19] Miller v. LaSalle Bank Nat'l Ass'n
In bankruptcy trustee's adversary proceeding to avoid a creditor's mortgage lien, arising from a purchase of debtors' property with a recorded mortgage containing a technical defect, decision of the district court in favor of the creditor is affirmed as considering, inter alia, a 2008 Amendment that quickly clarified that a provision applied to all mortgages, the legislature likely intended the 2007 Amendment to apply to all mortgages, whenever filed.

[02/16] US v. Edwards
Defendant's sentence and restitution order for bankruptcy fraud are affirmed where: 1) collateral estoppel did not preclude the restitution order because, although compensation to defendant's victims was the general issue in a bankruptcy settlement, the issue was not identical to the issue in the criminal proceedings; and 2) the sentence was not substantively unreasonable because the district court did not abuse its discretion when it considered defendant's history and circumstances.

[02/16] American Prairie Constr. Co. v. Hoich
In an action to enforce a settlement agreement reached in bankruptcy proceedings, the district court's order denying defendant's motion to dismiss and to recuse the district judge is affirmed where the statements in the district court's opinions and in the transcripts manifestly did not demonstrate a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism, nor did they display a disposition so extreme as to render fair judgment impossible. However, the order enforcing the settlement agreement is reversed where the parties did not come to a meeting of the minds with respect to an essential term.

[02/15] In re: Barner
In debtor's appeal from the bankruptcy court's ruling finding that an automatic stay did not apply to a foreclosure sale of her home, the order is affirmed where: 1) 11 U.S.C. sections 362(d)(4) and (b)(20) did not prohibit enforcement of a 2004 order lifting the automatic stay as to debtor's residence; and 2) the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act did not modify or affect orders issued in cases filed before its effective date.

[02/10] In re: TransTexas Gas Corp.
In two related cases involving a bankrupt corporate debtor, rulings rejecting (i) a claim by corporate debtor's former CEO that the severance payments he received from the company were not fraudulent transfers, and (ii) a claim by a trustee in a related matter that the estate was covered under a policy issued by appellee-insurer, are affirmed where: 1) the severance payments made to the CEO after his dismissal were obligations incurred by debtor within two years of its petition date and thus constituted fraudulent transfers; 2) debtor did not receive reasonably equivalent value for the payments to the CEO; and 3) the CEO's repayment of the amounts received did not constitute an insurable "Loss" under the insurance policy.

[10/23] Unifund CCR Partners v. Villa
In plaintiff's case against defendant-debtor for purchase of a credit card debt that was discharged in bankruptcy proceedings, trial court's dismissal of the suit is reversed as the trial court abused its discretion in assessing sanctions against plaintiff as there was no evidence to support the findings underlying the sanctions.

More...

Probate Trusts

[02/25] Conservatorship of John L.
In a petition to establish a conservatorship of a person pursuant to the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, the judgment of the court of appeal is affirmed where: 1) the superior court did not violate the LPS Act when it excused the individual's production and proceeded without him in attendance at a hearing to establish a conservatorship of his person; and 2) the superior court did not violate his due process rights.

[02/25] Donahue v. Donahue
Trial court's order, charging a trust with some $5 million in past and ongoing attorney fees incurred on behalf of a former trustee in defending against the beneficiary's allegations of self-dealing and conflict of interest is reversed as it cannot be determined from the trial court's order whether the fee awards are consistent with applicable legal principles. Long-established principles of trust law impose a double-barreled reasonableness requirement where: 1) the fee award must be reasonable in amount and reasonably necessary to the conduct of litigation; and 2) it also must be reasonable and appropriate for the benefit of the trust.

[02/11] Estate of Tolman
Denial of a granddaughter's petition to determine persons entitled to distribution from her grandmother's estate is affirmed as the exclusion of unmentioned heirs or relatives from the will's dispositions, or an intent to disinherit those who contest those dispositions, does not sufficiently express or manifest an intent to arrest the operation of the anti-lapse law following a legatee's death.

[01/29] Estate of Artall v. Comm'r. of Int'l. Rev.
In the taxpayer's appeal from the tax court's approval of the IRS Commissioner's disallowance of a "qualified family-owned business interest" estate tax deduction to the taxpayer estate, the tax court's order is affirmed where the "qualified family-owned business interest" deduction of 26 U.S.C. section 2057 is available for an estate's qualifying equity or ownership interests but not for debt interests such as loans receivable.

[01/22] Charles Schwab & Co. v. Debickero
In an interpleader action by a bank seeking to determine the ownership of an IRA account held by decedent, summary judgment for the named beneficiaries of the IRA is affirmed where: 1) the surviving spouse protections in ERISA did not apply to the IRA even though some of the funds originated from an ERISA-protected pension plan, and 2) the Internal Revenue Code also did not impose automatic surviving spouse rights on IRAs similar to those protections afforded under ERISA.

[01/15] Carroll v. Carroll
In an action seeking to remove a trustee of an irrevocable trust, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the judgment of the county court vacated as the county court at law had no jurisdiction to grant the relief sought and the judgment it rendered was void because the Texas Property Code vests exclusive jurisdiction over the claims in the case in the district court.

[01/08] Suleman v. Sup. Ct.
A petition for a writ of mandate by plaintiff, commonly referred to in the media as the "Octomom", challenging the probate court's denial of her motion to dismiss a petition by an individual, a president of a nonprofit corporation, and the court's appointment of the Orange County Social Services Agency (SSA) to conduct an investigation of the family's finances is granted where: 1) the probate court erred by denying plaintiff's motion to dismiss the petition; 2) the individual seeking guardianship has no standing under Probate Code section 1510(a) as the petition seeking appointment of a guardian of the octopulets' estates should have been dismissed because he has neither pleaded ultimate facts demonstrating the plaintiff has engaged in any financial misconduct, nor alleged any other information warranting court investigation in the plaintiff's family's finances; and 3) the probate court's order for an investigation of the family's finances is vacated.

[12/11] Balian v. Balian
Probate court's order granting a declaratory relief petition brought by a trust beneficiary to determine that a proposed petition to modify an irrevocable trust is not a contest is affirmed as the proposed modification petition explicitly states that it is being pursued under section 15409 and as such, it does not violate a no contest clause.

More...