All posts in Courts

Nice Discussion of Laches in a Non-Dischargeability Action from Judge Albert Tentative

I would not have thought that laches would come up in a non-dischargeability action.  The facts in issue are prepetition by definition.  The time to file the complaint is short.  Here, Judge Albert was dealing with an adversary proceeding that had been pending for at least a few years.  Plaintiff came up with a new brainstorm which apparently would work had Plaintiff not waited 3-4 years to make the argument.  This is part of Judge Albert’s tentative.  He also has a nice discussion of how res judiciata and collateral estoppel works in these matters.

Adv#: 8:11-01520 Read more…

Some Thoughts on Justice Antonin Scalia

This is a short article I wrote which was published on February 29, 2016 on the NACTT Academy website “Consider Chapter 13.”

Thoughts on Justice Antonin Scalia
by M. Jonathan Hayes
February 22, 2016

Antonin Scalia is a personal hero of mine.  He was not without flaws of course and I suspect that he and I would be on the opposite side of most issues, once the voting began.  I didn’t care for his taunting manner and his drive to get a laugh at the expense of attorneys arguing before the Supreme Court.  His dissents were sometimes embarrassing.  He sometimes all but called his colleagues morons.   I agree with other commentators that the predictability of his views lessened his influence with his colleagues.   Read more…

Learning from Antonin Scalia – The Story of the “Hapless Law Clerk”

I found this story by Justice Scalia’s former law clerk John Duffy on Scotusblog.  It discusses Scalia’s concurring opinion in Conroy v. Aniskoff (1993).  It contains a great lesson about the usefulness of legislative history.  The full article is here.

It seems there is a federal law somewhere that says that if a governmental agency forecloses on property, the redemption period (assuming there is one I guess), is extended or “tolled” by the amount of time the debtor is in the military.  Sounds good so far.  Who could be against that?  Some guy gets drafted or volunteers and schleps off to somewhere to defend freedom, he should get more time to redeem property being sold because he didn’t pay some tax.  Does the additional time however apply to a career military man?  In that case, the tolling period might be 30 years?  He just doesn’t have to pay his taxes until he retires?  That’s what happened in Conroy.  The Supreme Court ruled – 9-0 – that the code says what it says, that if it doesn’t make much sense, tell Congress.  The majority said that the language is clear – yes it’s tolled for whatever time the man is in the military.  The opinion then went on to explain that the ruling is justified by the legislative history.

Scalia separately concurred, taking the majority to task and giving us a nice lesson to remember, to wit – to hell with legislative history.    He writes, Read more…

Great Inn of the Court Program Last Night

Last night, team something discussed Motions for Summary Judgment at the Taix Restaurant.  Judge Barry Russell was an active speaker, as was Judge Neil Bason and Judge Robert Kwan.  The amount of effort Kathleen McCarthy put into setting it up was evident.  Judge Kwan commented that the Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts is hugely important to him.  I have wondered about that.  It is hugely important to the proponent to make sure the key facts needed to win are established with “undisputed facts,” but it’s nice to hear a judge say it is important to him as well.  Judge Russell commented that he sometimes reads the declarations first to see whether there is really sufficient “evidence” to establish anything.  He commented also that he personally reads the motions when they come in to determine if there is really some chance of success of the motion.  If not, he will not set it for hearing.

A few other helpful comments from the participants:  Number the objections, making it easier to make a clear record for the ruling.  THINK before making an objection, judges are not impressed by the boilerplate objections of everything in the motion.  Be sure to point to the specific page of a deposition transcript if you want the judge to read it.  A request for judicial notice simply authenticates the document, nothing else.  Granting MSJs are the most common reversals by the courts of appeals.

As to summary adjudication of facts, the judges seemed to have some doubts about the utility of that, mostly because if you are going to have a trial anyway, it might not be worth the effort.

The Inn is a good time.  Out of maybe 30-40 people in attendance, there were probably 4-5 trustees, three judges, and lots of experienced bankruptcy attorneys.  This is an especially great time for young lawyers to brush shoulders with us old folks.

Courts Required to Consider Continuance of Hearing on a Motion for Summary Judgment

Warkentin v. Federated Life Ins. Co., 594 Fed. Appx. 900 (9th Cir. Cal. 2014) has a great lesson for litigators:

“These consolidated appeals concern a dispute over a [an insurance policy].  We vacate the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Federated and remand for proceedings consistent with this disposition.

“The parties are familiar with the facts, so we will not recount them here. After realizing he failed to timely oppose Federated’s motion for summary judgment, Warkentin filed an opposition and requested that the district court “continue the [summary judgment] hearing 14 days to allow [Federated] time to reply to [Warkentin’s] Opposition.”  This request was filed the night before the hearing on the summary judgment motion. (Emphasis added.)   Read more…

Judge Neiter Announces His Retirement

From Chief Judge Sheri Bluebond:

After 40 years of practicing bankruptcy law and 10 years of being on the bench, the Hon. Richard M. Neiter has decided to retire effective as of 9/1/16.  He should then have more time to enjoy with his wonderful wife, Lois, his five grandsons and their parents. We wish him well.

RDM’s Roundup

The Earle Hagen Memorial Golf, Tennis and Poker Tournament committee is thrilled to announce that the proceeds of the 7th annual tournament of $28,987.11 were donated to Public Counsel’s Debtor Assistance Project this year.  The tourney has now generated over $200,000 for Public Counsel in its seven year history.

As most if not all of you know by now, the bankruptcy community lost Jim King in February.  The tourney was his baby and we are proud to have honored his leadership in organizing the event for so many years, and his extraordinary pro bono contributions throughout his legal career. Read more…

Judicial Estoppel: Can’t Have Your Cake & Eat It Too

Did the Debtor forget to list a lawsuit on his Schedule B or Statement of Financial Affairs?

Judicial estoppel is used to prevent a party from asserting inconsistent positions in different judicial proceedings (i.e.  you say one thing in bankruptcy court but then another in state court).   This rule was set in Supreme Court case of New Hampshire v. Main (2000). 

Read more…

Writ of Certiorari Sought in Student Loan Case

Tetzlaff v. Educational Credit Management Corp.

Pending petition

Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
15-485 7th Cir. TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

Issue: (1) Whether the Brunner test is the proper standard for determining “undue hardship” for the discharge of student loan debt; and (2) whether, if the Brunner test is the proper standard, that test should be (i) modified to eliminate the requirement that a debtor in the past have “made a good faith effort to repay the loans,” and (ii) clarified to establish that a debtor need only prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his inability to pay is “ likely to persist for a significant portion of the repayment period,” not that there is a “certainty of hopelessness.”

Date Proceedings and Orders
Oct 15 2015 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 16, 2015)
Nov 10 2015 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including December 16, 2015.

When the Court Has a Duty to Raise Issues Independently

I have been fooling around with my materials for my bankruptcy class coming up next semester.  I was rereading In re Carnduff, a student loan case that confirms that bankruptcy courts can grant a partial discharge of student loans.  The case has a lesson for courts and practitioners on the scope of the court’s right to use its own independent knowledge to reach a conclusion.

Suppose the court says at trial “I know you can your property taxes online contrary to the evidence you presented.”   Shouldn’t the court then give the party a chance to rebut this “evidence”?   Read more…