Case Summaries
Bankruptcy Law
Landlord Tenant
Bankruptcy Law
[03/08]
Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. US
In an action by a law firm seeking declaratory relief, arguing that plaintiff was not bound by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act's (BAPCPA) debt relief agency provisions and therefore could freely advise clients to incur additional debt and need not make the requisite disclosures in its advertisements, the Eighth Circuit's order rejecting the district court's conclusion that attorneys are not "debt relief agencies" under BAPCPA, upholding application of BAPCPA's disclosure requirements to attorneys, and finding BAPCPA section 526(a)(4) unconstitutional, is affirmed in part where: 1) attorneys who provided bankruptcy assistance to assisted persons were debt relief agencies under the BAPCPA; and 2) BAPCPA section 528's requirements were reasonably related to the government's interest in preventing consumer deception. However, the court of appeals' order is reversed in part where BAPCPA section 526(a)(4) prohibited a debt relief agency only from advising a debtor to incur more debt because the debtor was filing for bankruptcy, rather than for a valid purpose.
[03/08]
In Re: Ray
District court's judgment affirming the bankruptcy court's dismissal of two Chapter 11 proceedings was correct, but the decision is vacated, as the law firm lacked standing where there is no evidence that one of the law firm's former attorneys ever informed the bankruptcy court that it was appearing on behalf of the firm and the record is devoid of any mention of the firm by the attorney or any other party.
[02/19]
Miller v. LaSalle Bank Nat'l Ass'n
In bankruptcy trustee's adversary proceeding to avoid a creditor's mortgage lien, arising from a purchase of debtors' property with a recorded mortgage containing a technical defect, decision of the district court in favor of the creditor is affirmed as considering, inter alia, a 2008 Amendment that quickly clarified that a provision applied to all mortgages, the legislature likely intended the 2007 Amendment to apply to all mortgages, whenever filed.
[02/16]
US v. Edwards
Defendant's sentence and restitution order for bankruptcy fraud are affirmed where: 1) collateral estoppel did not preclude the restitution order because, although compensation to defendant's victims was the general issue in a bankruptcy settlement, the issue was not identical to the issue in the criminal proceedings; and 2) the sentence was not substantively unreasonable because the district court did not abuse its discretion when it considered defendant's history and circumstances.
[02/15]
In re: Barner
In debtor's appeal from the bankruptcy court's ruling finding that an automatic stay did not apply to a foreclosure sale of her home, the order is affirmed where: 1) 11 U.S.C. sections 362(d)(4) and (b)(20) did not prohibit enforcement of a 2004 order lifting the automatic stay as to debtor's residence; and 2) the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act did not modify or affect orders issued in cases filed before its effective date.
More...
Landlord Tenant
[03/03]
Fed. Ins. Co. v. Commerce Ins. Co.
In plaintiff-insurance company's subrogation claim, district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants in concluding that the implied coinsured doctrine controlled the outcome in this case and precluded the plaintiff from pursuing a subrogation claim is affirmed as plaintiff has not met its burden of proving that the "Responsibility for Damages" provision of a Residence and Care Agreement (RCA) overcomes the presumption that the landlord's insurance is held for the mutual benefit of both parties.
[02/09]
Chacon v. Litke
In a wrongful eviction action, judgment in favor of plaintiffs-tenants concluding that defendants violated the San Francisco Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance is affirmed where: 1) defendants' interpretation of the Ordinance as conditioning a tenant's right to reoccupy the unit upon compliance with a 60-day notice is rejected; 2) substantial evidence supports the trial court's finding that the stipulation gave defendants temporary possession of the apartment for up to three months to make repairs and the plaintiffs retained their rights under the Ordinance to reoccupy the premises; 3) the litigation privilege did not apply to defendant's conduct in refusing to allow the plaintiffs to reoccupy the apartment; 4) trial court did not err in granting judgment on the pleadings on the affirmative defenses; and 5) trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding plaintiffs' attorney's fees.
[02/01]
Woodlands Park Mgmt., LLC. v. City of E. Palo Alto Rent Stabilization Bd.
Trial court's holding that the Rent Stabilization and Eviction for Good Cause Ordinance (RSO), adopted by the citizens of the City of East Palo Alto, permitted recovery of attorney fees by a landlord in successful litigation against the city is reversed as the intent of the electorate was that section 15.A.5 of the RSO authorize the recovery of attorney fees only in civil proceedings between landlords and tenants to enforce their respective rights under the RSO, and no other provision of the RSO provides for an award of fees against the city.
[12/02]
Tarrant Bell Prop., LLC v. Sup. Ct.
In a case brought by residents of a mobile home park against the park owners for failing to properly maintain common areas and facilities and for being subjected to substandard living conditions, denial of defendant's motion to compel judicial reference is affirmed as a trial court has the discretion to refuse to enforce a reference agreement under the circumstances in the case or related considerations of judicial economy, and the court did not abuse that discretion.
[11/13]
Bloch v. Frischholz
In plaintiffs' Fair Housing Act (FHA) suit against their condo association for being required to remove a mezuzah from their doorpost under a new rule requiring that common hallways and outside of the doors be kept free of any objects, summary judgment in favor the condo association and its president is reversed for the most part where: 1) the judgment of the district court with respect to plaintiffs' claims under sections 3604(b), 3617 and 1982 is reversed as a trier of fact could conclude that the condo association's reinterpretation of the hallway rule and clearing of all objects from doorposts was intended to target only groups of residents for which the prohibited practice was religiously required; 2) plaintiffs can therefore proceed on an intentional discrimination theory under sections 3604(b), 3617 and 1982; and 3) district court's judgment granting summary judgment against the plaintiffs on their section 3604(a) claim is affirmed.
More...
|
