Contact Us

Seidel Baker & Tilghman PA
110 N. Division Street
Salisbury, MD 21801
Phone: (410) 742-8176
Fax: (410) 742-3117

FindLaw News

Case Summaries

Bankruptcy Law

[08/16] Bank of New York Mellon v. Watt
Dismissing an appeal from a district court order vacating the bankruptcy court's confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan because they lacked jurisdiction over an order of this sort, which is not a final order that might be appealed and the parties did not seek the forms of certification that would have provided jurisdiction.

[08/15] In Re Rick H. Reynolds
Reversing the decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel following the California Supreme Court's opinion answering a certified question regarding whether the creditors of the beneficiary of a spendthrift trust may reach the trust distributions and holding that the bankruptcy estate is entitled to the full amount of distributions due to be paid as of the date of the bankruptcy petition, but not any portion needed for support or education as long as the trust so specifies.

[08/09] In Re Pedro Lopez Munoz
Affirming the bankruptcy court's decision denying a creditor's motion to appoint a trustee for the bankruptcy estate to replace the debtor in possession of the estate because the petitioner for trusteeship failed to bear the burden of establishing the appointment's necessity, given the facts of the case.

[08/08] Hayden v. HSBC Bank USA
Affirming the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim in the case of a couple who defaulted on their home loan, filed bankruptcy, and argued that an assignment was invalid and that the mortgage was obsolete because the assignment claim was foreclosed by precedent and the obsolescence claim had no basis in statute or precedent.

Read More

Family Law

[08/17] In Re J.P.
Reversing the dispositional order imposing a reunification plan in the case of dependent children removed from their parent's custody by a dependency court because the court abused its discretion by imposing requirements that the parent could not comply due to a language barrier.

[08/15] County of Orange v. Cole
Affirming a trial court's order of child support in the case of a man who was a sperm donor, though in this case the donor and mother had a sexual relationship, the mother was impregnated with the father's extracted sperm by mutual agreement during a period in which the man was married with another woman, and he subsequently publicly identified himself as the child's father.

[08/04] In Re The Marriage of Garcia
Affirming the support order issued in connection with a nullity of marriage action because the prior court order in an action for dissolution of marriage dismissed for failure to establish a valid marriage did not trigger the doctrine of res judicata because the actions involve different primary rights and the putative spouse order is not a final order.

[08/03] In Re L.L.
Reversing a court order finding a former convict to be the third parent of a child because there was no evidence of a preexisting relationship between the putative father and child and ordering a weighing of the competing claims of the competing fathers to determine who will receive court recognition.

Read More


[08/17] Meyer v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
Vacating and remanding a lawsuit in which an Uber user complained that the application allows third party drivers to illegally fix prices where Uber asserted their right to compel arbitration on the basis of their user agreement because the district court's determination that the notice was not conspicuous and unambiguous because the agreement was valid as a matter of law.

[08/17] Moon v. Breathless Inc.
Reversing and remanding a case involving a contract between a dancer and a men's club where the District Court held that an arbitration clause in a signed contract covered statutory claims because under New Jersey law an arbitration clause must establish that the employee agrees to arbitrate all statutory claims, reference the claims waived, and explain the difference between arbitration and litigation, and the agreement at issue did not meet all requirements.

[08/15] In Re Howmedica Osteonics Corp.
Issuing a writ of mandamus and directing the District Court to transfer the claims of two corporate defendants who were not parties to an agreement with a forum selection clause in the case of a multi-party lawsuit where all defendants sought transfer to a single district but some were parties to agreements that designated a forum, while others were not.

[08/10] Airport Road Associates, LTD v. US
Reversing and remanding a case involving a group of limited partnerships seeking to exit a federal housing program through loan prepayment whose claims against the US were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the statute of limitations did not begin to run when a letter between the parties was determined to be a repudiation rather than a breach.

Read More

Tax Law

[08/07] Russell City Energy Company, LLC v. City of Hayward
Reversing an order sustaining a city's demurrer without leave to amend and dismissing a complaint to the extent that the order denied the plaintiff leave to amend in an action relating to an agreement between an energy company and a city whose terms may have violated the California Constitution because a quasi-contractual restitution claim would be permitted even if the Payments Clause at issue is unconstitutional.

[07/18] The Container Store v. US
Reversing and remanding the final judgment of the United States Court of International Trade case granting summary judgment to the government because the subject modular storage unit imports were improperly classified as mountings and fittings rather than as parts of unit furniture.

[07/05] Matuszak v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Affirming that the issue of the failure to file a petition for innocent spouse relief from IRS actions during the statutorily provided period deprives the Tax Court of jurisdiction to review such a claim.

[06/29] 926 North Ardmore v. County of L.A.
Affirming the appellate court's denial of the plaintiff's refund claim in a case where Los Angeles imposed a documentary transfer tax on a written instrument transferring beneficial ownership among parties and holding that such a tax can be imposed where there is a transfer of legal beneficial ownership made for consideration.

Read More

Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.