Justia U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In these consolidated appeals, the Redmond Group and Zeltser Group dispute over ownership of, and control over, three involuntary debtors: Fisher Island, Little Rest, and Mutual Benefits (collectively, the "Alleged Debtors"). Litigation of the ownership issue in three bankruptcy cases produced five consolidated appeals of four district court orders. After careful review of the record and the parties' briefs, the court found no reversible error and affirmed all four orders: the district court's denial of Zeltser Group's motion to withdraw reference of the ownership issue; the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's summary judgment order in favor of the Redmond Group in the Fisher Island and Little Rest cases; the district court's order dismissing, for lack of standing, certain non-party appeals from the bankruptcy court's summary judgment order; and the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's final judgment in favor of the Redmond Group in the Mutual Benefits case. View "Fisher Island Ltd. v. Solby+Westbrae Partners" on Justia Law

Iberiabank appealed the district court's decision affirming the bankruptcy court's order that Iberiabank's claims against Bradford Geisen, president and 100% shareholder of FFS, were released. The court concluded that section 8.13 of the bankruptcy reorganization plan of FFS is a general release of all claims against Geisen which include claims arising out of his personal guaranty of the loan at issue. The court rejected Iberiabank's request for the court to follow cases from the Fifth Circuit to conclude that the release in section 8.13 is not sufficiently specific to have res judicata effect. The court concluded that under principles of contract interpretation, the confirmed plan contained a "general release" that released claims based on Geisen's guaranty of the loan. As in In re Optical, this case is not truly about res judicata, but, rather, the interpretation of a reorganization plan. Even if the court were to apply the Fifth Circuit's test, the court would conclude that the release was sufficiently specific to release Geisen. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Iberiabank v. Geisen" on Justia Law

Plaintiff appealed the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's orders granting debtor's motion to modify its Second Amended and Restated Chapter 11 Plan and confirming debtor's Third Amended Plan of Reorganization. The court affirmed because plaintiff failed to satisfy the person aggrieved standard where plaintiff's interest in avoiding liability is not an interest protected or regulated by the Bankruptcy Code.View "Atkinson v. Ernie Haire Ford, Inc." on Justia Law

Joseph G. Wortley, interested party, appealed the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's summary denial of his motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b). Wortley and two others shared ownership in Global Energies before its bankruptcy. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion by clearly erring in its application of Rule 60(b)(2) under the facts of this case. The court remanded with instructions to grant Wortley's Rule 60(b)(2) motion and vacated its order approving the sale of Global assets to Chrispus.View "Wortley v. Chrispus Venture Capital, LLC" on Justia Law

In 2008, plaintiff filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. During the proceeding, LVNV filed a proof of claim to collect the Heilig-Meyers debt, notwithstanding the limitations period had expired four years earlier. At issue on appeal was whether a proof of claim to collect a stale debt in Chapter 13 bankruptcy violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692-1692p. The court answered in the affirmative. The FDCPA's broad language, the court's precedent, and the record compelled the conclusion that defendants' conduct violated a number of the Act's protective provisions. Accordingly, the court reversed the orders of the bankruptcy court and the district court dismissing the adversary proceeding.View "Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC, et al." on Justia Law

This bankruptcy appeal concerned whether Charles Kane and Harley Kane may discharge in Chapter 7 bankruptcy a $2 million judgment entered by a Florida state court in favor of creditors. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court did not clearly err in concluding that the state court judgment arose from a "willful and malicious injury" by the Kanes, and therefore the bankruptcy court correctly allowed the Stewart Firms, under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(6), to prevent the Kanes from discharging the state court judgment. The court also concluded that the bankruptcy court properly determined that Harley Kane's misconduct in the Kane Firm's Chapter 11 case barred his own discharge in Chapter 7 under 11 U.S.C. 727(a)(7) and 727(a)(2) taken together. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Kane, et al. v. Stewart Tilghman Fox & Bianchi, et al." on Justia Law

Debtor filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code, seeking to determine the secured status of the second and third mortgages held by Wells Fargo on debtor's principal residence. At issue was whether debtor can "strip off" a wholly unsecured junior mortgage in a Chapter 20 case. The court concluded that the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA) did not prohibit this result. Accordingly, the court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's determination that debtor could strip off Wells Fargo's second and third liens on the residence because they were wholly unsecured. View "Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Scantling" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against McCalla and Kondaur, claiming that they violated the automatic stay in plaintiff Kenneth Lodge's bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. 362, and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. 1692 et seq. On appeal, plaintiffs challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendants. Because plaintiffs failed to show an emotional injury sufficient to support a recovery of actual damages under section 362(k), the court concluded that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment as to the automatic stay claim. The court also affirmed the grant of summary judgment as to the FDCPA claim where plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that defendants were "debt collectors" because the district court was not required to take judicial notice of defendants' websites and the district court also did not abuse its discretion in declining to consider a document that listed foreclosure advertisements for properties unrelated to plaintiffs' properties. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Lodge, et al. v. Kondaur Capital Corp., et al." on Justia Law

Santander appealed the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's order overruling Santander's objection to the confirmation of debtor's plan under Chapter 13. The bankruptcy court proposed that petitioner surrender his vehicle under 11 U.S.C. 1325(a)(5)(C) to satisfy Santander's claim. The bankruptcy court held that 11 U.S.C. 506(a)(1) and (a)(2) determined the vehicle's value and hence the amount of Santander's secured claim, which would be satisfied by debtor's surrender of the vehicle. The court held that section 506(a)(2)'s valuation standard applied when a Chapter 13 debtor surrendered his vehicle under section 1325(a)(5)(C). Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's order affirming the bankruptcy court's judgment. View "Santander Consumer USA Inc. v. Brown" on Justia Law

Heatherwood and FCB appealed the district court's affirmance of a final amended judgment entered by the bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy court determined that there was an implied restrictive covenant limiting the use of real property at issue to a golf course. As a preliminary matter, the court concluded that, because FCB satisfied the person-aggrieved doctrine, FCB also met Article III standing requirements. On the merits, the court concluded that the bankruptcy court did not err when it held that FCB and Heatherwood had actual, constructive and inquiry notice of the implied restrictive covenant; the bankruptcy court did not err in finding that most, if not all, of the homeowners within the Heatherwood subdivision bought their home with the expectation that the golf course property would remain a golf course; the bankruptcy court did not err in holding that the doctrine of estoppel by deed precluded the enforcement of the covenant; with respect to FCB and Heatherwood's argument that the doctrine of integration in the Agreement between HGC and Heatherwood served to destroy an implied covenant, the bankruptcy court did not err in finding integration did not apply under the facts of the case; in considering the doctrine of changed circumstances, the bankruptcy court relied on various factual findings in determining that the homeowners' benefit from the continued existence of the covenant outweighed the detriment borne by FCB and Heatherwood; and the court rejected FCB and Heatherwood's argument that HGC had no standing to enforce the implied restrictive covenant because HGC owned no property. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Heatherwood Holdings, LLC v. HGC, Inc." on Justia Law