All posts in Courts

Supreme Court Grants Cert in Taggart!

Last Friday, the Supreme Court granted cert in the Taggart case.  That is the discharge violation case that says

“the creditor’s good faith belief that the discharge injunction does not apply to the creditor’s claim precludes a finding of contempt, even if the creditor’s belief is unreasonable.” [emphasis added] 888 F.3d at 444

Lorenzen v. Taggart (In re Taggart), 888 F.3d 438, (9th Cir. April, 2018)

SFVBA Program This Friday – Supreme Court Opinions – Ahart and Hayes

Email from Steve Fox (obviously not written by me)

Dear All:

Friday’s bankruptcy program is the annual program on Supreme Court opinions.  What none of you get to enjoy (but I do) is the spirited back and forth discussion and argument which the two panelists, Judge Ahart and Jon Hayes, have had by email arguing about cases, what they mean and whether they have importance to bankruptcy practitioners.

Judge Ahart and Jon Hayes will discuss Lamer, Archer and its impact on litigation under Section 523(a)(2)(A).  They will also discuss the Village at Lakeridge opinion.  While the opinion itself may not seem that exciting, the standard of appellate review, it is important to us as practitioners because it is a good primer for when a trial is over and either your client or the other side intends to take an appeal.  The opinion is a good place to start when you have to tell your client about the standard of review on appeal.  Though the opinion is from 2016, Husky continues to reverberate and so the panel will go back to Husky and talk about what it held and its impact on practitioners.   Jon Hayes and Judge Ahart will also take a look ahead at cases being argued this term at the supreme court.  One case being argued comes out of the 9th Circuit, the Taggart case.  This is such an important case given the ruling which, in my opinion, interjects uncertainty for both creditors and debtors.

The panel is spirited.  You could not fall asleep at this program even if you brought a pillow.

Here are the particulars: Read more…

Renewal of Judgment versus Revival of Judgment

In California, ten years is pretty common for the validity and duration of a judgment lien.  You can thereafter renew.   Some states have renewal of judgment and revival of judgments.  What’s the difference?

Read more…

Recording Federal Court Judgment against Property of Defendant in State

Plaintiff obtains a Nevada state court judgment against defendant who owns land in California (different state).   What authorizes plaintiff to be able to record that Nevada judgment against D’s property in California?  Yes — the Full Faith & Credit Clause in Article VI of the Constitution which says states must give full faith and credit to judgments from other states.

Curve ball — what authorizes a Nevada plaintiff to obtain and record a Nevada Federal Court judgment against D’s property in same state Nevada?

Read more…

“Notice waived?”

This may seem odd to share but you’ve heard it before at a hearing: “.…notice waived your honor?

On CourtCall this morning, the judge said something interesting.

The matter was continued and counsel for non-moving party said, “thank you, notice waived?”

The judge paused and said politely, “was that a question…..because notice can only be waived by the non-moving party since it was the moving party who brought the motion.  By asking it as a question you are asking the moving party to waive notice.   So, in lieu of asking “notice waived (question mark)” the non-moving party’s counsel should say it as an affirmative statement — “notice waived (period)”  The moving party would ask it in a question “notice waived?”

Read more…

LABF Program – Annual State of the Court Presentation – October 15, 2018

LOS ANGELES BANKRUPTCY FORUM
EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM

October 15, 2018

ANNUAL STATE OF THE COURT PRESENTATION

Join us for a special presentation by the Honorable Sheri Bluebond on the state of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, and what we can expect in the next year.

The Aftermath of Jevic and the Survival of Structured Dismissals and Settlements

After Chief Judge Bluebond’s presentation, our panel will discuss the aftermath of the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., and whether class-skipping settlements and structured dismissals have survived. The panel will focus on opinions from courts around the country that have addressed these issues since the United States Supreme Court ruling. Read more…

Judge Scott Clarkson to Give Lecture on Dutch Artist Rembrandt van Rijn

On October 25, 2018 at 12 noon to 1 pm Judge Scott Clarkson will give a lecture on the life and 1656 bankruptcy of the Dutch artist Rembrandt van Rijn.  It is a lecture and powerpoint presentation that will be held in the Ronald Reagan Federal Building and Courthouse, 411 West Fourth Street, Santa Ana, Room 4078, Located in the USBC Intake Department, which is found by taking the escalator up to the 2nd floor.

This is a preview of the lecture he is giving at the Denver Art Museum on November 30.  Rembrandt Lecture Flier

Where Does The Word “Bankruptcy” Come From?

There are two possibilities according to BankruptcyData:  the first and most recognized is that “bankruptcy” is a combination of Bancus (latin for bench or table) and Ruptus (broken).  Back in the days a banker would do his trading on an open marketplace bench.  If the banker would no longer be able to meet his obligations then his bench was physically broken as a symbolic gesture to show his failure and inability to negotiate or do business.  This phrase carried over to Italy where the term morphed into “banco rotto” which means broken bank.  The other source of origin for the word is believed to be from the French “banque route” which means a table trace which was a metaphor for a sign left at the banker’s table that was once in business but not is gone.

Will the Retirement of Anthony Kennedy Change the Makeup of the Court?

I could sit for hours and listen to Prof.  Erwin Chemerinski talk about anything.  He did his Review of the Supreme Court last week for the 9th Circuit Judicial Conf.  Before he spoke, Judge Jay Bybee put a whole bunch of statistics about the last Supreme Court term on the screen.  One statistic that kind of jumped out is that on every 5-4 vote last term, Kennedy voted with the “conservatives.”  That suggests that replacing Kennedy with a “conservative” judge will not change, significantly for sure, the judicial makeup of the court.

When Chemerinski spoke then he commented on that fact and said that Kennedy typically joined the “liberals” of the court in five specific areas and in those areas, the new makeup will be significant.  The five areas are:

  • Abortion
  • Affirmative Axtion
  • Gay rights
  • Exclusionary rule
  • Limits on the death penalty

More on Reaffirmation Agreements

I had a short very enlightening conversation on reaffirmation agreements with a bankruptcy judge at the 9th Circuit Judicial Conf last week.  The conversation started with my comment at the program I was doing that I don’t sign – ever – the attorney declaration in 524(c)(3).  The conversation was about the consequences of not signing it.  I now have a new way of looking at the whole process.

Section 524(c) states that a reaffirmation agreement is not enforceable unless:

(3) such agreement has been filed with the court and, if applicable, accompanied by a declaration or an affidavit of the attorney that represented the debtor during the course of negotiating an agreement under this subsection, which states that—
(A) such agreement represents a fully informed and voluntary agreement by the debtor;
(B) such agreement does not impose an undue hardship on the debtor or a dependent of the debtor; and
(C) the attorney fully advised the debtor of the legal effect and consequences of—
(i) an agreement of the kind specified in this subsection; and
(ii) any default under such an agreement;

(5) the provisions of subsection (d) of this section have been complied with; and
(6) (A) in a case concerning an individual who was not represented by an attorney during the course of negotiating an agreement under this subsection, the court approves such agreement as—

(i) not imposing an undue hardship on the debtor or a dependent of the debtor; and
(ii) in the best interest of the debtor.

So far so good.  If I sign the declaration, the agreement is enforceable.  If I don’t, it’s unenforceable.  Can’t the court approve it anyway?  That is certainly what I and I’m sure 99% of consumer bankruptcy lawyers think.  But the debtor is still “represented by an attorney” – me – so (c)(6) doesn’t seem to apply. Read more…