Opinion ID: 3044084
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: The parties agree that no facts are in dispute. The bankruptcy court’s grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo, Ries v. Wintz Properties, Inc. (In re Wintz 4 Cos.), 230 B.R. 848, 857 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 1999) (citing Peter v. Wedl, 155 F.3d 992, 996 (8th Cir. 1998), Mayard v. Hopwood, 105 F.3d 1226, 1227 (8th Cir. 1997), and Wade v. Midwest Acceptance Corp. (In re Wade), 219 B.R. 815, 818 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 1998)), while its imposition of sanctions is subject to the deferential “clear abuse of discretion” standard of review. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405 (1990) (appellate court should apply an abuse-of-discretion standard in reviewing all aspects of a district court’s Rule 11 determination). “[T]he established standard for imposing sanctions is an objective determination of whether a party’s conduct was reasonable under the circumstances.” Snyder v. Dewoskin (In re Mahendra), 131 F.3d 750, 759 (8th Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Armwood, 175 B.R. 779, 788 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1994)). “We apply an abuse-of-discretion standard of review in all aspects of Rule 11 (and by analogy, Rule 9011) cases.” Id. (quoting Grunewaldt v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of New York (In re Coones Ranch, Inc.), 7 F.3d 740, 743 (8th Cir. 1993)). “An abuse of discretion occurs if the court bases its ruling on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.” PW Enter., Inc. v. Kaler (In re Racing Servs., Inc.), 332 B.R. 581, 584 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2005).