News

Case Summaries

Bankruptcy Law

[02/21] In re Parmalat Securities Litigation
In bankruptcy proceedings in which state-law claims were asserted, the district court's decision not to abstain from hearing the claims is reversed and the case remanded to state court, where: 1) mandatory abstention under 28 USC section 1334(c)(2) was appropriate under a four-factor test, given the complexity of the state law issues, the deference owed to state courts in deciding state law issues where possible, and the minimal effect of the state cases on the federal bankruptcy action and on the administration of the underlying estates; and 2) the argument that mandatory abstention did not apply because the cases could have been commenced in federal court had been waived, and was outside the scope of the mandate set forth in a previous opinion of the Second Circuit.

[02/10] In re McCormick
In bankruptcy proceedings in which a bank sought repayment of a loan that it claimed was secured by a deed of trust on two contiguous parcels of the debtor's property, the lower courts' order that the bank's lien on one of the parcels was avoided is affirmed, where: 1) the deed was unrecorded as to that parcel; 2) the bankruptcy trustee was only imputed with the notice of the deed that would be imputed to a bona fide purchaser of the tract under state law; and 2) North Carolina law allowed a purchaser to rely exclusively on the official recordation index of the county to discover liens, regardless of what other independent knowledge that purchaser might have.

[02/09] McDaniel v. Blust
In a suit regarding conduct by members of a law firm and an accountant during bankruptcy proceedings, the district court's dismissal of claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed, where the plaintiffs did not obtain leave of the bankruptcy court before filing suit as required by the Barton doctrine.

[02/09] Matter of SK Foods, L.P.
In a bankruptcy proceeding in which the bankruptcy court, affirmed by the district court, denied a motion to remove the trustee and disqualify his counsel and to issue a protective order requiring the return of the documents, interlocutory appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, where each of the orders was not a final, appealable order.

Read More

Property Law & Real Estate

[02/21] Eastside Exhibition Corp. v. 210 East 86th Street Corp.
In a commercial landlord-tenant dispute in which the tenant sought total rent abatement, the order of the Appellate Division in favor of the landlord is affirmed, where the tenant totally failed to demonstrate any actual damages or loss of enjoyment of the premises due to the landlord's erection of cross-bracing occupying 12 square feet in a 15,000 to 19,000 square foot space, the interference by the landlord thus being de minimis and warranting neither injunctive nor monetary relief.

[02/21] Matter of the Foreclosure of Tax Liens by Orange County Commissioner of Finance
In a case in which the owners of property that had been foreclosed upon and was put up for auction sale moved by order to show cause to stay the sale of the property, the order of the Appellate Division halting the sale is reversed, where although the former owners were allegedly not notified of a release option to repurchase, such option was a discretionary, permissive remedy and did not establish or extend a property right entitled to due process protection.

[02/17] Putnam Family Partnership v. City of Yucaipa
In a suit by mobilehome park owners under the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (FHAA) challenging a city zoning ordinance prohibiting any mobilehome park operating as senior housing from converting to all-age housing, the district court's dismissal of the suit is affirmed, where the FHAA as amended was silent on the issue of whether municipally zoned senior housing could qualify for the senior exemption to discrimination based on familial status, so the court deferred to HUD regulations allowing for such housing as a reasonable interpretation of the statute.

[02/16] Santa Monica Properties v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board
In a challenge to a rent control board's decision to lower the rents of two tenants because their landlord lowered the temperature on a hot tub and altered a sauna's timer knob, the trial court's judgment in favor of the board is: 1) reversed as to the landlord's petition for writ of administrative mandate, as the board may not order a rent decrease based solely on a landlord's act of changing the temperature of a hot tub or sauna, without a finding, supported by substantial evidence, that the temperature changes affected the landlord's return or the fairness of the rent paid by tenants; and 2) affirmed as to the landlord's petition for writ of traditional mandate seeking to compel the board to adopt regulations providing for final action on rent decrease petitions within 120 days.

Read More

Probate Trusts

Read More