JTF Rose, Inc. v. Esquerra

August 16, 2018

Case Type:

Consumer

Case Status:

Reversed and Remanded

Citation:

BAP No. CC-17-1356-TaLLs (9th Circuit, Aug 07,2018) Not Published

Tag(s):

Ruling:

BAP for 9th Cir. vacated and remanded bankruptcy court (CD Cal.) order denying creditor's motion to dismiss chapter 13 case. Bankruptcy court incorrectly applied issue preclusion. Lack of sufficient findings to support denial prevented BAP from determining if error was harmless. Bankruptcy court's prior denial of motions to dismiss on procedural grounds did not warrant application of issue preclusion to third motion. Bankruptcy court failed to make sufficient findings that denial of prior motions was on the merits. Debtor failed to raise issue preclusion based on confirmed chapter 13 plan.

Procedural context:

Bankruptcy court (CD Cal.) denied creditor's motion to dismiss chapter 13 bankruptcy case; creditor appealed to BAP for 9th Circuit.

Facts:

Repeat filer filed third bankruptcy that debtor converted to chapter 13 from chapter 7 after trustee issued no distribution report. Bankruptcy court confirmed debtor's plan that included avoidance of junior secured creditor's lien and treatment as general unsecured claim. Two months later, debtor and creditor stipulated that creditor's lien would be avoided and treated as unsecured claim contingent on debtor's completion of his chapter 13 plan and receipt of a discharge. Creditor then changed its mind, asserted debtor's bad faith, and filed motion to dismiss. Bankruptcy court denied motion for lack of property service. Creditor took R. 2004 exam of debtor and re-filed motion to dismiss, asserting debtor failed to disclose assets, improperly attaching R. 2004 transcript with motion, in violation of local rule. Court denied motion for improper service and improper attachment of R. 2004 transcript. Creditor re-filed motion and debtor objected.

Judge(s):

Taylor, Lafferty, Lastreto

Washington State Bankruptcy Court Clarifies Standard for Substantial Contribution Claim

"the court limited the allowance of the substantial-contribution claim to those fees and expenses directly ...

Clientron Corp. v. Devon IT, Inc.

The Court of Appeals vacated the District Court's sanction order, and remanded to impose a new sanction.

Return to Home

Insolvency news at your fingertips.

JTF Rose, Inc. v. Esquerra

Previous Article

Next Article

JTF Rose, Inc. v. Esquerra

Previous Article

Next Article

Other content in this Stream

Washington, D.C. ~ April 11 - 14

"the court limited the allowance of the substantial-contribution claim to those fees and expenses directly related to procuring contingency-fee counsel and the costs related to copying records"

The Court of Appeals vacated the District Court's sanction order, and remanded to impose a new sanction.

"[SPV OSUS Ltd. v. UBS AG] is notable for its expression of the Second Circuit’s rather extraordinary view of “related to” bankruptcy jurisdiction."

Ninth Circuit opinion is prime for Supreme Court review regarding the extent of a bankruptcy court’s contempt powers.

Venezuela insisted that the Crystallex judgment would never be paid so it engineered a “reverse fraudulent transfer” to take assets out of the U.S. and back to Venezuela to avoid creditor claims.

A Feb. 27, 2018, decision by the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a split in the circuit courts by clarifying that a bankruptcy trustee[...] may claw back preferences and constructive fraudulent transfers.

Following a suggestion made by two Supreme Court justices, Tribune creditors ask the Second Circuit to recall the mandate and remand for reconsideration in district court.

Two justices recommend that the Second Circuit reconsider the ‘Tribune’ safe harbor decision in light of Merit Management.

In re DBSI Inc., offers new precedent that swings the balance back toward debtors and general unsecured creditors at the expense of the IRS.

ABI Deputy Executive Director Amy Quackenboss talks with David Cox of Cox Law Group and Elizabeth Gunn of the Office of the Virginia Attorney General about their new consumer book.

As wild fluctuations in cryptocurrency value invites a potential surge in bitcoin-related bankruptcies, we examines how to approach cryptocurrency in fraudulent-transfer fraudulent-transfer litigation

The debtor's debt for criminal restitution is not dischargeable under § 523(a)(7) where he had failed to preserve the argument that his former employers were not governmental units.

Doing a great forensic fraud analysis is meaningless unless the findings are reported effectively. Learn from the pros how to do it right the first time.

[...]Is a deposit or wire transfer into a debtor’s bank account a “transfer” within the meaning of § 101(54)? The legislative history behind § 101(54) suggests that the answer is “Yes.”

High court to decide whether a false oral statement about one asset results in nondischargeability.

Oral statement that company was in "very fine legally [sic] financial shape" & had "plenty of cash to operate" is within exception under 523(a)(2)(A) so the debt was dischargeable. Judgement reversed.

The 2d Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment, finding that five of the appellant’s arguments were meritless for the same reasons stated in the district court's order.

The issue of nonconsensual third-party releases in chapter 11 plans continues to generate litigation.

Creditors contemplating discharge proceeding pursuant to § 523(a)(2)(A)’s fraud provision should be mindful of several potential pitfalls before assuming prior state judgment applies.