Case Summaries
[08/27]
Campbell v. Countrywide Home Loans Inc.
In a suit accusing defendant of filing a claim attempting to collect a pre-petition debt in violation of an automatic stay in plaintiffs' Chapter 13 bankruptcy, an interlocutory order granting partial summary judgment for plaintiffs is reversed where: 1) unpaid escrow payments that accumulate pre-petition in the year that a bankruptcy petition is filed, and which the creditor had a right to collect under the loan documents, constitute a "claim" under the Bankruptcy Code; but 2) the filing of a proof of claim including the amounts of these payments does not by itself violate an automatic stay in a bankruptcy proceeding.
[08/26]
In re: Porter
In a bankruptcy case, a ruling excepting from discharge a judgment debt that appellee had obtained against debtor in an employment retaliation case is affirmed where the bankruptcy court correctly bankruptcy court gave collateral estoppel effect to the judgment, and found that the jury in the retaliation case necessarily found that debtor willfully and maliciously injured appellee.
[08/26]
In re: Hamilton
11 U.S.C. section 524(a) makes a state-court judgment void ab initio when entered against a debtor whose dischargeable debts have been discharged.
[08/22]
In the Matter of: Ferrell
Statutory damages are not available for violations of 15 U.S.C. sections 1632(a) and 1638(b)(1), provisions of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA).
[08/22]
Henning v. Mainstreet Bank
In bankruptcy proceedings wherein appellant claimed that a mortgage he granted to appellee-bank on his home as collateral for business loans should be released under the terms of their agreement, summary judgment for bank is affirmed where: 1) with regards to the term "paid", the contract is not ambiguous and appellant's definition of the term was contrary to the parties' clear intention that bank be made a secured creditor; and 2) a claim that he should be equitably excused from his obligation as a guarantor is not addressed.
[08/21]
In re: Cellular 101, Inc.
A party's failure to timely inform the court of appeals of a settlement that it believes disposes of a pending appeal precludes the party from asserting the affirmative defense of settlement and release in a later proceeding.
[08/19]
In Re: Holland
A dispute in a bankruptcy case over which state's law should determine whether real property owned by debtor should be exempted from the bankruptcy estate is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction where the district court's order ruling that Florida law applied and remanding to bankruptcy court, without deciding whether Florida law granted an exemption, was not a final order subject to appeal.
[08/18]
In the Matter of: N A Flash Found. Inc.
In a bankruptcy case, refusal to avoid transfers made by debtor to one of its creditors just prior to its bankruptcy filing is affirmed where under state law, creditor was a beneficiary of a construction trust fund of which debtor was trustee, and would be entitled to full recovery of the funds transferred, even in a Chapter 7 proceeding.
[08/14]
Tri-State Fin., LLC v. First Dakota Nat'l Bank
In a case arising out of the bankruptcy case of a former owner of an ethanol plant in South Dakota, which appellee purchased from the bankruptcy estate, bankruptcy court's grant of bank's motion for a prepayment penalty is reversed where: 1) bank failed to establish that South Dakota courts would decline to construe an ambiguity in a First Note against it; and 2) doing so, the note does not provide for the imposition of a prepayment penalty under any set of facts.
[08/14]
Chartschlaa v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co.
In an action arising out of defendant-insurer's termination of its relationship with plaintiffs-former sellers of its insurance police, district court's denial of defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law is reversed where the claims of former sellers belong to the bankruptcy estate of former insurance seller, and not to either of the plaintiffs.
More...
[08/27]
David L. v. Superior Ct. of Orange County
Regarding juvenile court order setting a new permanent plan selection and implementation hearing, petition for writ of mandate and request for stay are denied where: 1) section 366.3, which provides for a new 366.26 hearing for children under the guardianship, does not require a modification petition; and 2) the prima facie evidence supported the juvenile court's decision to set a 366.26 hearing.
[08/27]
Sheri T. v. Superior Ct. of Orange County
Petition seeking extraordinary relief from juvenile court order setting new permanent plan selection hearing is denied where: 1) order setting a new permanent plan selection hearing was correct; 2) when circumstances have changed, the court should hold a permanent plan selection hearing unless the mother proves there is a compelling reason not to do so; and 3) the mother cannot show prejudice from the juvenile court's decision to hold a new permanent plan selection hearing and she will have an opportunity to fully litigate the issues at that time.
[08/22]
In re A.C.
Order terminating parental rights is affirmed where: 1) the dependency court's noncompliance with section 372 standing alone does not violate the parent's due process rights; and 2) the error is subject to a harmless error standard.
[08/22]
Iglesias v. Mukasey
Petition for review of BIA's denial of motion to reopen the case is denied where: 1) petitioner's allegation that BIA had ignored evidence put forth by petitioner regarding his marriage to an American citizen was an allegation of legal error subject to appellate review; but 2) petitioner did not provide clear and convincing evidence that his marriage was bona fide.
[08/21]
Combs v. Homer-Center Sch. Dist.
In a suit by parents who home-school their children seeking declaratory relief and a permanent injunction to prohibit the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from requiring plaintiffs to comply with reporting and review requirements, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where: 1) the challenged statute was a neutral law of general applicability, subject to rational basis review, and was constitutional as it rationally furthered legitimate state interests; 2) plaintiffs did not assert a valid "hybrid-rights" claim under which, as a potential violation of both free-exercise rights and the parental right to direct a child's education, the law might be subject to greater scrutiny; 3) plaintiffs' claims did not fall under the narrow exception of Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), requiring heightened scrutiny when parents challenge compulsory-education laws on religious grounds; and 4) having disposed of all federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims under the Religious Freedom Protection Act.
[08/21]
US v. Carson
Sentence for conspiring to transport a minor across state lines for the purpose of unlawful sexual activity and interstate travel to engage in illicit sexual conduct is affirmed where, for purposes of applying a sentencing enhancement, the minor victim was properly determined to be in defendant's custody, care, or supervisorial control, despite argument that the victim's mother's presence gave her sole custody and control.
[08/20]
In re Adrianna P.
Order granting reunification services to presumed father is remanded with orders to vacate where: 1) the record made clear that providing reunification services to father would be detrimental to the child; and 2) the court abused its discretion when it ordered agency to provide reunification services to father. Order directing agency to provide reunification services to other presumed father is affirmed where: 1) despite court's erroneous legal conclusion regarding section 361.5, the court did not abuse its discretion with this order; and 2) there was sufficient evidence to support the court's implied finding that reunification was in the children's best interests.
[08/19]
In re Aaron D.
Termination of mother's parental rights to her two children is affirmed over claims of error that: 1) the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction over this case under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) because Texas had jurisdiction over custody determinations involving the children and the California juvenile court did not contact the Texas court to resolve jurisdiction; 2) mother did not receive proper notice of the Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.261 selection and implementation hearing; and 3) the court erred in finding the children adoptable because of their special developmental needs, physical ailments, and psychosocial issues.
[08/19]
In re David H.
Minor's removal from his mother's home is affirmed where there was substantial evidence that, at the time of a July 2007 hearing, the child faced a substantial risk of serious physical harm from mother because there was a substantial risk that mother would resort to physical violence in disciplining him.
[08/14]
Lemons v. Bradbury
In an action brought by voters who signed a referendum, which sought a statewide vote on a legislative act establishing same-sex domestic partnerships, challenging the Oregon Secretary of State's procedures for verifying referendum petition signatures, denial of permanent injunctive relief for plaintiffs is affirmed where the Secretary's procedures for verifying sampled referendum petition signatures did not violate plaintiffs' equal protection and due process rights.
More...
|
