Section 110 of the United States Bankruptcy Code provides that a non-attorney can assist in the preparation of the bankruptcy petition. However, as an Inkster, Michigan man just learned (the hard way), the Bankruptcy Code places numerous requirements on bankruptcy petition preparers and subjects those who do not comply to substantial penalties.
On Tuesday, February 25, Derrick Hills of Inkster was sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge Sean F. Cox to 46 months in prison after being convicted by a jury in September of five counts of criminal contempt. The contempt proceedings stemmed from repeated violations of orders issued by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Steven Rhodes from 2007 to 2009. According to a press release issued by the U.S. Attorney's Office following Hills' conviction at trial:
Read More ›
The evidence presented at trial showed that Hills had acted as a bankruptcy petition preparer since 2007, assisting people in filing for bankruptcy. Hills continued to act as a bankruptcy petition preparer despite five bankruptcy court orders issued by Bankruptcy Judge Steven Rhodes, permanently enjoining Hills from doing so for various non-compliance with bankruptcy rules and complications caused by his acting in the capacity of a bankruptcy petition preparer. Hills assisted individuals with consumer debts in preparing and filing their Chapter 7 bankruptcy paperwork. However, his actions went well beyond what was allowed by law and clearly violated Judge Rhodes Orders.
In re Newcomb Print Communications, Inc., Case No. 12-08042 (Bankr. W.D. Mich., Sept. 6, 2013).
When a debtor files a case under Chapter 11 and retains legal counsel, another person or entity may fund the debtor’s retainer. But even when the debtor is not the source of the funds, the retainer is property of the bankruptcy estate – which is particularly important if the case later converts to Chapter 7. Read More ›
Lindsey v. Pinnacle Nat’l Bank (In re Lindsey), Appeal No. 12-6362 (6th Cir., Aug. 13, 2013)
The Sixth Circuit held this week in a published opinion that a bankruptcy court’s denial of confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan is not a final appealable order. In so holding, the Sixth Circuit joins four other circuits, while three other circuits have held to the contrary. Read More ›
The Bankruptcy Court of the Western District of Michigan recently held that a spendthrift provision in a trust was negated by other trust provisions, and resulted in a debtor’s beneficial interest in the trust becoming property of the estate.1
The issue before the Court was whether the trust restrictions prevented the debtor’s beneficial interest from being included in property of the estate.2 In this case, the debtor’s mother created a trust in 2001, and the debtor was one of four named beneficiaries of the trust. Upon the settlor’s death in August, 2011, the trust became irrevocable. The trust included a spendthrift provision that prevented any beneficiary from assigning his interest in trust income or principal. The trust also included a provision authorizing the trustees, in their discretion, to distribute trust principal to a beneficiary in the event the beneficiary could not support himself. The trust further contained an “age-based restriction” on a beneficiary’s withdrawal rights (including the debtor’s rights). The “age-based restriction” specifically provided that after a beneficiary reaches age 25, the beneficiary has a “continuing right to withdraw any amount up to one half of the value of the trust assets; and after the beneficiary attains age 30, the beneficiary has a continuing right to withdraw all trust assets.” When the settlor of the trust died, the debtor was 42-years-old. Read More ›
Categories: Western District of Michigan
In a recent decision, the United States Supreme Court provided guidance relating to the term “defalcation” of the Bankruptcy Code under Section 523(a)(4).1 In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the term “defalcation” of the Bankruptcy Code includes a “culpable state of mind requirement involving knowledge of, or gross recklessness in respect to, the improper nature of the fiduciary behavior.” Read More ›
Categories: U.S. Supreme Court
The Bankruptcy Court of the Western District of Michigan recently denied a Trustee’s Motion to Sell Avoidance Actions pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 363(b).1 The Trustee’s Motion sought authority to sell potential causes of actions under Chapter 5 of the Bankruptcy Code, as the estate had limited resources to pursue the actions. The Court noted that the Sixth Circuit has not decided the issue of whether a Bankruptcy Trustee has authority to sell avoidance actions.
The real issue before the Court was whether an avoidance action is “property of the estate” given a Trustee has authority to sell property of the estate pursuant to § 363(b). The Court rejected the Trustee’s argument that avoidance actions are included within property of the estate. Read More ›
Categories: Western District of Michigan
Effective May 1, 2013, the Bankruptcy Courts for the Western and Eastern Districts of Michigan will begin charging a new fee of $25 for each claim transferred. The purpose of the fee, as stated by the Judicial Conference Committee, relates to the number of claims transferred and the impact they have on the workload of the Bankruptcy Courts, including Court time and resources.
The fee will be assessed upon the filing of the claim transfer, regardless of who files the claim transfer. The $25 fee will be charged for each individual claim transfer, and it will also apply to partial claims transfers.
In re Casey Marie Anthony, Bankr. M.D. Fla., Case No. 8:13-bk-00922-KRM
Although this blog typically focuses on Michigan bankruptcy cases, last week’s Chapter 7 filing by Casey Anthony raises interesting questions about the impact of bankruptcy on public figures.
Casey Anthony held the national spotlight for nearly three years after being charged with murdering her two-year-old daughter, Caylee. Anthony initially alleged that Caylee was kidnapped by her nanny, then claimed that Caylee accidentally drowned in the family pool. After a jury found her not guilty on all charges except some misdemeanors, Anthony faced a barrage of lawsuits, including claims for defamation and for reimbursement by private investigators who searched for Caylee in the months before her remains were found.
Those lawsuits ground to a halt when Anthony filed a voluntary Chapter 7 petition in the Middle District of Florida on January 25, 2013. In her bankruptcy papers, Anthony lists few assets (comprised mostly of household goods) but discloses unsecured debts of nearly $800,000, plus numerous debts of unknown amounts. The debts include the pending lawsuits against her and $500,000 in legal fees owed to her criminal defense attorney. Read More ›
Categories: Chapter 7
In a recent Opinion, Judge Opperman from the Eastern District of Michigan Bankruptcy Court held that a Chapter 13 debtor cannot exclude voluntary post-petition retirement contributions from disposable income. This Opinion is significant for debtors, trustees, and creditors as it systematically changes the way the Eastern District of Michigan will treat post-petition voluntary retirement contributions in a Chapter 13. Read More ›
In a recent opinion, the Sixth Circuit has provided clarification of Stern v. Marshall's1 holding by analyzing Article III “judicial power,” the pubic rights doctrine, and the bankruptcy court's authority.
In Waldman, the Western District of Kentucky Bankruptcy Court entered a judgment against the principal creditor after finding that the creditor had defrauded the debtor and had acquired nearly all of the debtor’s assets by means of fraud. The Bankruptcy Court entered a judgment discharging the debts the debtor owed the creditor and awarded the debtor a judgment of more than $3 million in compensatory and punitive damages. The creditor appealed the Bankruptcy Court’s entry of a final judgment based upon three challenges: (1) the debtor’s state law fraud claims are beyond the jurisdiction of the federal court; (2) the judgment entered was beyond the statutory authority of the bankruptcy court; and (3) the judgment was beyond the bankruptcy court’s power pursuant to Article III of the Constitution. Read More ›