Court Opinion

ID: 9686038
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 15:20:18.918079+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:13.253533
License: Public Domain

SCHERMER, Bankruptcy Judge,
dissenting in part.
I respectfully disagree with the majority’s conclusion that Rule 9011 sanctions were not warranted. Deference should be given to a trial judge who imposes sanctions; reversal is only warranted where the sanctions resulted from a clear abuse of discretion. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx, 496 U.S. at 405, 110 S.Ct. 2447. I do not believe the trial judge clearly abused his discretion. The arguments presented by the debtor’s counsel were entirely inconsistent. If the debtors rescinded the refinancing transaction under TILA they must remain liable under the first mortgage because rescission requires the parties to be returned to the status quo ante. The cases cited by the majority in support of their conclusion that Mr. Oliver’s position “was not wholly without legal support” have nothing to do with rescission under TILA. Rather, the cases discuss general principles regarding payments and assignments, many of which have since been codified, for example, in the Uniform Commercial Code, and all pre-date TILA’s enactment in 1968. Arguing “apples” in support of “oranges” does not provide legal support for an argument pursuant to which the debtors are seeking to “have their cake and eat it too.” I therefore respectfully dissent with respect to that portion of the opinion reversing the imposition of sanctions and would instead conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding sanctions.