Legal News

Case Summaries

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...

Tax Law

[03/10] Hesse v. Sprint Corp.
In a class action alleging that defendant Sprint Corp. unlawfully collected a Washington state tax from Washington customers, summary judgment for defendant is vacated and remanded where a prior class action settlement challenged Sprint's billing of customers for certain federal regulatory fees, and the Washington plaintiffs' interests were not adequately represented in that litigation.

[03/05] Mike v. Franchise Tax Bd.
In an action by the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) to collect income tax from petitioner, an American Indian, for receiving more than $385,000 as her per capita distribution from her tribe's gaming operations on their reservation, trial court's entry of judgment in favor of FTB is affirmed as, the State of California may impose income tax on income received by an enrolled member of a tribe from his or her tribe's reservation activities when that member resides on the reservation of a different tribe.

[03/04] New York v. Golden Feather Smoke Shop, Inc.
In defendants' appeal from a preliminary injunction prohibiting the sale of untaxed cigarettes other than to members of the Unkechauge Nation for their personal use, the Second Circuit certifies the following questions to the New York Court of Appeals: 1) Does N.Y. Tax Law section 471-e, either by itself or in combination with the provisions of section 471, impose a tax on cigarettes sold on Native American reservations when some or all of those cigarettes may be sold to persons other than members of the reservation's nation or tribe?; 2) If the answer to Question 1 is "no," does N.Y. Tax Law section 471 alone impose a tax on cigarettes sold on Native American reservations when some or all of those cigarettes may be sold to persons other than members of the reservation's nation or tribe?

[03/03] Byers v. Intuit, Inc.
In plaintiff's putative class action on behalf of U.S. taxpayers against the IRS and a consortium of companies in the electronic tax preparation and filing industry (FFA) claiming violations of the Independent Offices Appropriations Act (IOAA) in the charging of fees in exchange for providing e-filing services, as well as a violation of section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, dismissal of both claims is affirmed where: 1) the district court was correct in holding that the IOAA does not apply to the FFA members, as it only applies to a government agency and none of the exceptions in Thomas v. Network Solutions, Inc., 176 F.3d 500 (D.C. Cir. 1999) apply; and 2) the district court did not err in dismissing the Sherman Act claim as the FFA members are entitled to conduct-based implied antitrust immunity with respect to the anti-competitive action taken pursuant to the Ceiling Provisions of the 2005 Agreement with the IRS.

[02/26] US v. Bright
In defendants' appeal from the district court's order enforcing IRS summonses requiring production of documents, including those relating to offshore accounts, and finding defendants in contempt, the orders are affirmed in part where: 1) a taxpayer cannot refuse to produce a privilege log or documents for in camera review in response to an order to show cause and then protest an insufficient opportunity to present a claim of privilege; and 2) defendants were in contempt based on their failure to produce documents related to the two previously identified offshore accounts named in the summons. However, the order is modified where the district court's application of the foregone conclusion exception to records of two additional credit cards not named during the enforcement proceeding was clear error.

More...

Banking Law

[03/10] Anchor Sav. Bank, FSB v. US
In one of the last Winstar cases arising out of the savings and loan crisis of the late 1970s and early 1980s, involving a plaintiff's suit alleging that the adoption of the FIRREA and its implementing regulations breached the government's obligations under supervisory merger contracts, judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff is affirmed in part and remanded in part where: 1) the trial court did not commit clear err in finding that it was foreseeable that the breach would result in lost profits to plaintiff in an amount commensurate with the ultimate award for lost profits; 2) the trial court did not err in finding of a causal connection between the government's breach of contract and plaintiff's sale of RFC (a mortgage banking company); 3) the trial court did not err in awarding lost profit damages attributable to plaintiff's forced sale of RFC; 4) the trial court permissibly concluded that NAMCO (mortgage company) was a reasonable commercial substitute for RFC, and its purchase thus qualified as mitigation for the loss of RFC; but 5) the case is remanded to allow the trial court to determine whether an error was made in offsetting plaintiff's mitigation costs by NAMCO's retained earnings through 1997 and, if so, how to correct the error.

[03/09] Martinez v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.
In an action under Section 8(b) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), and California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), claiming that a mortgage lender charged plaintiffs an illegal underwriting fee, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where: 1) the clear and unambiguous language of RESPA Section 8(b) did not reach the practice of "overcharging"; and 2) the UCL claims alleging "unfair" and "fraudulent" conduct were preempted by the National Bank Act, and the allegations of "illegal" conduct failed to state a claim.

[03/02] Ma v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.
In an action against Merrill Lynch based on unauthorized transfers from plaintiff's investment account, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where New York U.C.C. Section 4-A-505, which imposes a one-year statute of repose on certain claims based on electronic funds transfers, bars plaintiffs' common law claims, which had longer limitations periods.

[02/26] Williams v. Fleming
In plaintiff's suit against a bank, the US, and and an FDIC associate examiner, claiming that the associate examiner's racially motivated bias against plaintiff and other African-Americans was the reason he stopped receiving loans from the bank, dismissal of all claims including the Bivens suit against the associate examiner is affirmed where, because the dismissal of plaintiff's suit against the US was on the merits, and not for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, his remaining Bivens suit was properly barred by section 2676 of the FTCA.

[02/09] US v. Harris
Defendants' sentences for bank fraud and conspiracy to traffic in or use unauthorized access devices are affirmed in part where: 1) the district court did not clearly err in calculating one defendant's intended loss as being equal to the credit limits of the credit cards she compromised; and 2) a defendant's sentence may be enhanced where his crime recklessly jeopardizes property, even if that property survives the crime intact. However, one defendant's sentence is vacated in part where the district court erred by enhancing his sentence four levels based on its finding that his offense had involved fifty or more victims, because only eight of the sixty-three financial institutions identified as victims by the district court suffered an actual loss.

More...

Property Law & Real Estate

[03/10] Milwaukee Metro. Sewerage Dist. v. American Int'l Specilaty Lines Ins. Co.
In a sewerage district's suit for damages against an environmental liability insurer for denying coverage for costs incurred by the district in removing significant pollution on land it recently purchased, district court's judgment is reversed and remanded as the district court's finding that there was clear and convincing proof that a prior agreement existed between the insurance company and the sewerage district that the parcel would be covered property was clearly erroneous. Therefore, defendant is entitled to judgment on the sewerage district's reformation claim and, as a consequence, judgment in favor of defendant on its indemnity claim is vacated.

[03/10] TJS of N.Y., Inc. v. Smithtown
In an action seeking an injunction and declaratory judgment to the effect that defendant-town's zoning ordinance did not give plaintiff adequate alternative sites on which to locate its adult entertainment business, a denial of an injunction is vacated where the First Amendment required courts to consider the adequacy of alternative sites available when the ordinance is challenged, not at the time the ordinance is passed.

[03/09] Martinez v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.
In an action under Section 8(b) of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), and California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), claiming that a mortgage lender charged plaintiffs an illegal underwriting fee, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where: 1) the clear and unambiguous language of RESPA Section 8(b) did not reach the practice of "overcharging"; and 2) the UCL claims alleging "unfair" and "fraudulent" conduct were preempted by the National Bank Act, and the allegations of "illegal" conduct failed to state a claim.

[03/09] Seltzer v. Barnes
Trial court's denial of defendant's anti-SLAPP motion, arising from an underlying suit involving claims against a property management company and homeowners' association, is reversed where: 1) the trial court erred in concluding plaintiff's two causes of action against defendant do not arise from speech or petitioning activity where his alleged conduct was the negotiation of a settlement in the prior case; and 2) because defendant may not be held liable for the alleged conduct under the litigation privilege, plaintiff has failed to show a probability of prevailing on her causes of action for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

[03/09] Hoopa Valley Tribe v. US
In an action against the United States for breach of fiduciary duty brought by the Hoopa Valley Tribe, arising from the distribution of the remainder in a Settlement Fund established under the Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act only to the Yurok Tribe, summary judgment in favor of the government is vacated and remanded where: 1) the Hoopa Valley Tribe lacks standing because it cannot show an injury in fact; but 2) the matter should have been dismissed without prejudice

More...