Articles Tagged with 7th Circuit

Published on:

7th Circuit Court Seal

Jepson v. Bank of New York Mellon
Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit  Docket No. 14-2459

Opinion Date: March 22, 2016

This case is a testament to the subprime crisis and illustrates how complex and devastating mortgage securitization and pooling was to ordinary homeowners; middle-class people faced with sudden and insurmountable mortgage debt. Sadly, this decision also illustrates just how hard it is to stand up to the holders of pooled mortgage loans.

The underlying facts of the case are so common that the Plaintiff could have been anyone; while the tortuous path of the case up to the 7th Circuit – years after the underlying foreclosure and bankruptcy – left this Plaintiff financially devastated.

Factual Background

Patricia Jepson (Jepson) executed a Note and Mortgage issued by “America’s Wholesale Lender” – a d/b/a of notorious subprime mortgagee Countrywide – and Mortgage Electronics Registration Systems (MERS), its nominee. The Note was endorsed by Countrywide d/b/a America’s Wholesale Lender and transferred to CWABS, a residential mortgage trust operating under New York law that pooled loans and sells mortgage-backed securities sold on Wall Street. CWABS is governed by a Pooling and Service Agreement (PSA). Bank of New York Mellon (BNYM) was the Trustee for CWABS. MERS therefore assigned Jepson’s mortgage to BNYM.

When Jepson eventually defaulted on her mortgage – a common scenario in such subprime traps – BNYM filed a Foreclosure complaint in State Court. Jepson inturn filed Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. BNYM predictably moved to lift the Automatic Stay. But instead of lying down and letting the Bank proceed, Jepson filed an Adversary Complaint and Objection seeking a declaration that BNYM had no interest in her mortgage because, inter alia, the note did not proceed through a complete chain of intervening endorsements; was endorsed after the closing date in the PSA; and that America Wholesale Lender was a fictitious entity rendering the Note was void under Illinois law. Continue reading

Published on:

7th Circuit Court Seal

Smith v. Sipi, LLC
7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals
Docket 15-1166 Date:Jan. 20, 2016

In this case from right in our neighborhood – Joliet, Illinois – the Bankruptcy Court and 7th Circuit agree that using the market value of property instead of its artificially low disposal price in a tax sale reflects the real intent of both Bankruptcy law and Illinois law. At the same time, both Courts agree that one taking from a tax-sale buyer is entitled to bona fide purchaser protection.

Background

The Smiths lived in a single-family home in Joliet, Illinois. In 2004 Mrs. Smith inherited the property. While living there in 2000, she and her husband failed to pay the real estate taxes, giving rise to a tax lien in favor of Will County. At a 2001 auction, SIPI purchased the tax lien and paid the delinquent taxes of $4,046.26 plus costs.Mrs. Smith did not redeem that tax obligation and SIPI recorded its Tax Deed in 2005; ultimately selling the property to Midwest for $50,000.

Procedural History

In 2007 the Smiths filed for Chapter 13 Bankruptcy protection and successfully sought to avoid the Tax Sale. Both the Bankruptcy Court and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that under the terms of 11 U.S.C. 548(a)(1)(B) the property was not transferred for reasonably equivalent value. However, both Courts did find that Midwest was a “subsequent transferee in good faith” (i.e. a bona fide purchaser) entitled to retain the value of the property it had purchased.

Continue reading

Published on:

7th Circuit Court Seal

EAR vs. Brandt/Brandt vs. Horseshoe Hammond, 14‐2174
Appeal from District Court (ND IL ED) 12‐cv‐00271
Decided Oct. 13, 2015

Introduction

In an Adversary Proceeding in the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy case of Equipment Acquisition Resources (EAR), Plan Administrator William Brandt (Brand) sought to avoid and recover the so-called “fraudulent transfers” made to EAR’s founder that he subsequently lost gambling at Horseshoe Casino.

Facts

EAR was established in 1997 to manufacture and refurbish machinery for use in creating technology products. Beginning in 2005 however, it also began defrauding creditors through crooked equipment financing activities. As a result, founder Sheldon Player and a company Officer named Malone pocketed about $17 Million each.

It was not until September 2009 that an outside forensic accounting firm hired by EAR’s Board of Directors detected the fraud. In response to the revelation about the wrongdoing, the company’s Board and all Officers resigned. EAR’s shareholders then elected William Brandt as the sole Board Member and Chief Restructuring Officer. Shortly thereafter the company sought Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection.

Procedural History

Brandt filed an Adversary proceeding against Player and Malone in the Chapter 11 case pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 544, 548, and 550 to avoid and recover the transfers made to them. Brandt prevailed, then had to collect from Horseshoe.

In the ensuing case in the District Court, Horseshoe moved for Summary Judgment under the aegis of the statutory “Good Faith” defense in 11 U.S.C. 550(b)(1). Horseshoe prevailed in the District Court.

Brandt appealed the District Court’s ruling, arguing that it had misinterpreted §550(b)(1) and, in addition, it should have granted his prior Motion to Compel production of documents related to investigations conducted by Horseshoe concerning Player.

Continue reading

Published on:

7th Circuit Court Seal

Duff v. Central Sleep Diagnostics, LLC
7 Cir. U.S. Court of Appeals Docket No. 13-3837 Opinion September 10, 2015

Original Claim
Investors in Central Sleep sued the company as well as Dachman, its promoter, and others. Their claims included fraud, the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), conversion, fraudulent conveyance, civil conspiracy, and securities fraud. Dachman was also singled out for fraudulent conduct; he spent stolen investor funds on a tattoo parlor, vacations, cruises, a new Land Rover, rare books, personal stock trading, and gambling. The Judge ordered Central Sleep into receivership and issued a stay against “all civil legal proceedings” involving Defendants.

Attorney Claim
Attorney Goodman had represented the Defendants and obtained a judgment for his unpaid legal fees. He submitted a claim to the Receiver for that amount; but also filed a lien on the proceeds of Dachmans’ separate State Court medical malpractice suit. Neither Goodman nor the Dachmans informed the Receiver or Judge about those proceedings. When the Receiver learned of the malpractice suit he immediately recovered the settlement proceeds and proposed a distribution plan. Goodman objected to the plan and argued that unlike the other creditors he was entitled him to full – rather than pro rata – payment.
Continue reading

Published on:

7th Circuit Court Seal

Unsecured Creditors’ Comm. v. Ind. Family & Soc.Servs. Admin.

7 Cir. Court of Appeals Case No.14-2420 Date August 28, 2015

Facts

Published on:

7th Circuit Court SealDunnet Bay Constr. Co. v. Borggren, No. 14-1493 (7th Cir. 2015)

Dunnet was a highway construction company prequalified to bid and work on Illinois Dept. of Transportation (IDoT) projects and compete for Federally highway contracts that was owned by two white males.

Dunnet, whose average annual receipts were over $52 Million, wanted to be considered a “disadvantaged business enterprise” (DBE) in order to compete for certain jobs. However, the government defines a DBE as a small entity that is owned at least 51% by, and controlled by, so-called “socially and economically disadvantaged individuals” (ie: women and minorities).  A DBE must also have annual receipts of $22.41 Million or less.

Published on:

The Facts

In 2004 Miller sought to build a 4-unit condominium project on her lot in Monona, Wisconsin. The process stalled while Miller bought another lot, amended the plan, and abated an unexpected asbestos problem. Then her real problems began.

Miller negotiated unsuccessfully with her neighbor, a former mayor, who trespassed onto her property at the direction of city officials and took photographs for use at a planning commission meeting to oppose her project. Citations were issued for creating a public nuisance and working without the proper permit; the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources issued a “Stop Work” Order due to the asbestos. Miller was also required to erect a fence, was told that weeds were too high, and was ordered to remove various structures.

State Courts

A Wisconsin State Court rejected 3 of the citations issued against her, stating that while “some of the efforts to enforce compliance were unreasonable” Miller had not pointed to any similarly situated person who had been treated differently. With the Court on its side, Monona refused to adjust taxes on the property to reflect the demolition of existing structures, and Officials continued to trespass by parking cars on her property. Continue reading

Published on:

Many small business owners find comfort and success capitalizing on a franchise. Franchisors use Non-Compete (“NCA”) and Non-Disclosure (“NDA”) clauses as well as mandatory arbitration provisions to protect themselves. But should such a provision be effective against a non-signing spouse? That was the question before the Appellate Court in the recent 7th Circuit case of Everett vs. Paul Davis Restoration. The short answer? Yes, it is.

The Family Business

Davis Restoration entered into a Franchise Agreement with Matthew Everett, husband of Plaintiff Renee, as the “principal owner” of Franchisee EA Green Bay. Sometime after signing as the sole owner of EA, Matthew transferred 50% of the company to his wife despite not securing permission from the Franchisor beforehand. Eventually, the Franchise Agreement was terminated and the 2-year non-compete provision took effect. Matthew then transferred the remaining 45% of EA to his wife, who continued to operate it under the name “Building Werks” from the same location with the same customers and employees. Moreover, the Franchisor contended, Building Werks continued to capitalize on its good will and reputation.

Published on:

A Little Light Reading

Are you excited to read about a dispute between competing secured creditors for the priority of their liens in property of the Bankruptcy Estate? Of course not.

Lucky for you issues such as these are generally heard in State court rather than in Federal Bankruptcy courts. Why? Because real property is considered a unique feature of the state and county in which it is located. Local features get local treatment.

Featured In