Source: https://mattlindblom.wordpress.com/2016/03/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 21:06:59+00:00

Document:
The Seventh Circuit affirms the lower courts’ decision to grant the mortgagee’s motion to modify the automatic stay to proceed with the state court foreclosure action. The court also affirms the lower courts’ decision to dismiss claims in the debtor’s adversary complaint against the mortgagee based on alleged violations of a pooling and service agreement. The debtor did not have standing on those claims because the debtor was not a third-party beneficiary to that agreement. However, the court remands for reconsideration of the dismissal of two claims that were not based on the pooling and service agreement. Opinion below.
The bankruptcy court denies the debtor’s motion to dismiss the complaint seeking to deny the debtor a discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2)(A) or alternatively to except the creditors claim from discharge under § 523(a)(6). The debtor argued that the creditor failed to state a claim because the complaint only alleged that the debtor caused injury to his own business rather than to the creditor itself. The court disagrees, holding the debtor’s actions to remove property from his business could be the basis for a claim under § 523(a)(6). The debtor also argued that the creditor failed to plead the requisite intent for § 727(a)(2), but the court disagrees and denies the motion to dismiss. Opinion below.
The bankruptcy court denies the defendant’s motion to dismiss based on Kentucky’s five-year statute of limitations for breach of an oral contract. The trustee brought the claim based on the defendant’s failure to properly care for the debtor’s cattle prior to the bankruptcy filing. The trustee argued that Indiana’s six-year statute applied. The court recognizes the circuit split on the issue of whether a bankruptcy court should apply the choice-of-law rules of the forum state or federal choice-of-law principles. The seventh circuit has not ruled on the issue. The bankruptcy court determines that, absent a significant federal policy or interest (which was absent in this case), a bankruptcy court should apply the choice-of-law rules of the state in which it states. Applying Indiana’s choice-of-law rules, the court determines that the six-year statute of limitations applies, and thus the motion to dismiss is denied. Opinion below.
The seventh circuit affirms the lower courts’ decisions finding the debt nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4), because the debt arose from the debtor’s “defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity.” The debtor was an Illinois attorney that represented the plaintiff when he sold his home. The plaintiff spoke only Polish, and the attorney relied on the buyer’s attorney to translate. The sale price was far below market price and the one term the plaintiff required, a life-estate interest in a portion of the property, was not included. The plaintiff obtained a pre-petition state court judgment for the loss. The seventh circuit explains that defalcation does not require deliberate wrongdoing, but fault greater than negligence is required. In this case, the applicable standard was met. Opinion below.
In this nondischargeability action, the bankruptcy court denies the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment as to the 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) claim based on defamation and grants the motion as to the § 523(a)(6) claim based on abuse of process. The court analyzes the prepetition state court judgment to determine whether the requisite willful and malicious injury for § 523(a)(6) was established such that collateral estoppel prevented the defendant from defending against the claims in this action. Because the defamation judgment was not clear as to whether the false information was published with knowledge of it being false or published with a reckless disregard for the truth, the defendant was not collaterally estopped from arguing 523(a)(6) did not apply to this claim. On the other hand, the judgment as to the abuse of process was clear that the defendant acted with the requisite intent for § 523(a)(6). Opinion below.
The bankruptcy court denies the department’s motion to reconsider the judgment finding the debtor was entitled to a discharge of the debt to the department. Opinion below.
The Seventh Circuit reverses the bankruptcy court’s judgment dismissing the committee’s fraudulent and preferential transfer claims. The committee brought the claims against the debtor’s landlord. The basis of the claims was the debtor’s termination of the leases 52 days before declaring bankruptcy. The court holds that there could have been value available to creditors if the leases remained in effect on the petition date. The committee was not seeking to evict the new tenant, but was merely seeking the value that was allegedly lost. The court remands to the bankruptcy court to determine the value of the transfer and any defenses of the landlord. Opinion below.

References: § 727
 § 523
 § 523
 § 727
 § 523
 § 523
 § 523
 § 523
 § 523