Firm News

Case Summaries

Bankruptcy Law

[07/03] Gen. Elec. Capital Corp. v. Future Media Prods., Inc.
In an appeal brought by an oversecured creditor in a bankruptcy matter, an order denying the creditor default interest and attorney's fees is reversed and remanded where: 1) the bankruptcy court improperly applied the circuit court's rule from In re Entz-White Lumber and Supply, Inc., 850 F.2d 1338 (9th Cir. 1988), to the facts of this case; and 2) the bankruptcy court should apply a presumption of allowability for the contracted for default rate, "provided that the rate is not unenforceable under applicable non-bankruptcy law."

[07/01] Donell v. Kowell
In a suit arising to recover gains made by defendant, an innocent investor, from a Ponzi scheme, a judgment requiring him to disgorge his profits as fraudulent transfers under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act is affirmed where the circuit court: 1) adopted the largely uniform analysis used for applying the UFTA to allow recovery from investors in a Ponzi scheme, and describes a two-step process for determining the existence and amount of liability; 2) found there was no error in the district court's application of such analysis; 3) rejected arguments that courts should not be allowed to require innocent investors to disgorge net profits; and 4) declined to permit good faith investors to claim offsets for taxes or other expenses paid in connection with receipt and management of income from a Ponzi scheme.

[06/26] Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. v. Shapiro
In bankruptcy proceedings, judgment rejecting a bankruptcy court's decision that the earmarking doctrine did not apply to a new mortgage as a preferential transfer and that the estate was diminished by the perfection of the new mortgage is reversed where: 1) the trustee established the elements of an avoidable preference set forth in section 547; 2) plaintiff was not a "new creditor" which precluded it from invoking the earmarking doctrine since it refinanced its own loan with debtor; and 3) the lapsed perfection of the original mortgage and plaintiff's late perfection of the new mortgage diminished debtor's estate.

[06/25] AG Capital Funding Partners v. State Street Bank and Trust Co.
In an action alleging breach of contract, violation of federal Trust Indenture Act, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence based on defendant's alleged failure to deliver debt transaction registration statements required to secure a debt, the court of appeals finds that: 1) plaintiffs' contract and Trust Indenture Act claims were barred by a release previously executed by plaintiffs as part of a bankruptcy settlement and that no fiduciary duties existed; however; 2) because negligence claims were not barred by the release and there were issues of fact as to whether defendant owed and violated a duty of care, plaintiffs' cause of action for negligence is reinstated.

[06/25] Tidewater Fin. Co. v. Kenney
In a Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding, an order confirming the debtor's Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings where: 1) the parties are left to their contractual rights and obligations and a creditor may pursue an unsecured deficiency claim under state law after a debtor satisfies the requirements for plan confirmation under section 1325(a)(5)(C) by surrendering his 910 vehicle; and 2) the circuit court joints the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in further recognizing that such unsecured debt need not be paid in full any more than other unsecured debts, but it cannot be written off in toto while other unsecured creditors are paid some fraction of their entitlements.

More...

Criminal Law & Procedure

[07/03] Tablada v. Thomas
In a case involving whether the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in promulgating a regulation interpreting 18 U.S.C. section 3624(b), which governs the calculation of good conduct time for federal prisoners, the court finds that: 1) the BOP concededly violated the APA by failing to articulate a rational basis for its decision to promulgate the regulation; but 2) the remedy for the violation is to interpret the federal statute in accordance with the BOP's Program Statement 5880.28; and 3) the BOP's methodology for calculating good time credits under Statement 5880.28 was both reasonable and persuasive under applicable law.

[07/03] US v. Morriss
Denial of a motion to suppress statements made outside the presence of counsel is affirmed over defendant's claims that: 1) the district court erroneously found his Sixth Amendment right to counsel did not attach during an interview in which he provided inculpatory statements; and 2) the government violated his due process rights by interviewing him during a lapse in representation.

[07/03] US v. Dodds
Sentence for possession of child pornography is affirmed over claims that: 1) the district court failed to adequately consider relevant sentencing factors; and 2) defendant's due process rights were violated because the sentence was imposed after the government presented an inaccurate picture of relevant conduct.

[07/03] US v. Anderson
A conviction for insider trading and money laundering is affirmed over claims of error that: 1) the government's evidence was insufficient to convict him, 2) the district court erred in failing to give his theory-of-the-case jury instruction; and 3) that he is entitled to a new trial. The sentence is affirmed over the government's claims of error that the sentence was unreasonable because the court erroneously excluded certain stock sales as relevant conduct when considering the U.S.S.G. for illegal insider training.

[07/03] US v. Feemster
A reduction of defendant's sentence to 120 months from 240 months for knowingly and intentionally distributing crack cocaine is reversed and remanded where the district court: 1) considered irrelevant factors; 2) failed to explain its unusually lenient sentence with sufficient justifications to support the degree of the variance; and 3) thus committed procedural error and abused its discretion.

More...

Probate Trusts

[06/26] Murphy v. Murphy
A probate court judgment finding plaintiff entitled to a constructive trust over one-half interest of decedent's real and personal property existing on the date of his death is reversed on collateral estoppel grounds where: 1) prior to the decedent's death, a probate court previously issued an order on behalf of decedent, authorizing the decedent's conservator to execute a living trust and pour-over will to implement an estate plan which effectively disinherited plaintiff; and 2) a careful balance of all the relevant factors supported that principles of collateral estoppel should serve to bar plaintiff's subsequent causes of action.

[06/25] Safai v. Safai
In a case involving a dispute over whether a minor's actions triggered the "no contest clause" contained in a trust instrument, the court of appeals finds that the minor's act of signing the "minor's consent" portion of an ex parte application for appointment of guardian ad litem did not equate to "voluntarily" participating in a trust contest, an act which a minor is legally incapable of pursuing by their own volition.

[06/24] IN Funeral Directors Ins. Trust v. Benefit Actuaries, Inc.
In a suit alleging violation of fiduciary duties under ERISA and breaches of common law duties to plaintiff by providing it with bad advice and failing to recommend measures that would stave off insolvency, judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff did not provide evidence that defendants promised to administer the Trust in accordance with certain state law or that defendants knew the Trust would rely on it to follow the Michigan statute; 2) plaintiff failed to show that defendant assumed a duty to provide actuarial advice; 3) defendant did not breach a duty by failing to advise trustees about the risk of raising the specific stop loss deductible and about the Trust's poor financial situation; and 4) defendant did not breach a duty by failing to recommend that the Trust maintain adequate reserves.

[06/20] Talbot v. Hustwit
Judgment entered against defendants on a guaranty agreement after lender foreclosed on real property securing a loan made to a trust structured by defendants is affirmed where: 1) case law has uniformly held the requirements for a deficiency judgment under Code of Civil Procedure 580a inapplicable to guarantors; and 2) considering the manner in which defendants structured the trust arrangement to detach from debts owed by the trust, there was ample basis for finding them not principal obligors to the loan, but true guarantors.

[05/15] Miller v. Campbell
In a fees dispute brought by a law firm against the executor of an estate after the probate court refused to award a category of fees associated with services rendered for the executor's personal matters, grant of executor's motions in limine to exclude all evidence, resulting in dismissal of the case, is reversed where: 1) the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel did not apply to bar the law firm's claim of fees against the executor personally; and 2) in light of the evidence, the trial court erroneously ruled that the evidence was insufficient, as a matter of law, to support the law firm's quantum meruit claim.

More...

Property Law & Real Estate

[07/03] Jacob v. West Bloomfield
In a suit brought under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 alleging a violation of plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights when defendant entered plaintiff's property without a warrant to inspect the property for criminal violations of a land use ordinance, denial of summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the purpose of the government intrusion was not merely administrative but also bore the threat of criminal sanctions; and 2) the fact that plaintiff did not endure an even more intrusive search does not obviate the Fourth Amendment's requirement that, absent exigent circumstances, officials may not conduct criminal investigations within the curtilage of a person's home without a warrant.

[07/03] MLC Automotive, LLC v. Town of Southern Pines
In a suit alleging that the rezoning of a certain piece of real estate violated plaintiff's common law vested rights in the property and its federal and state substantive due process rights, denial of defendants' Rule 60(b) motion is affirmed where: 1) defendant-town's Rule 60(b) motion was filed within ten days of the original judgment, called into question the correctness of the judgment, and is properly construed as a Rule 59(e) motion; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Burford abstention was appropriate because the case involved difficult issues of state land use policy.

[07/02] Jamison v. Jamison
A party is precluded from challenging the adequacy of an owelty award on appeal when it fails to timely move for a new trial on that issue.

[07/02] Rodriguez-Rivera v. Federico Trilla Reg'l Hosp. of Carolina
In a medical malpractice case against defendant-hospital presenting the issue of whether an Asset Purchase Agreement entered between past and present owners of the hospital absolved the current owner's liability for acts or omissions by the hospital's previous owners and/or operators, the circuit court finds that the terms of the asset purchase agreement not only could, but did, absolve the present owners from liability.

[07/02] Cavin v. Home Loan Ctr., Inc.
In a suit involving a mailer sent by defendant announcing its mortgage program and claiming that defendant violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to present plaintiffs' with a firm offer of credit, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the letter at issue presented a firm offer of credit, despite the absence of some material terms and the minimal number of consumers who obtained the loan; and 2) thus, defendant did not violate the FCRA.

More...