FindLaw News Seidel Baker & Tilghman PA Attorneys Salisbury Maryland

News

Politics Mergers and Acquisitions Tax Business

Case Summaries

Bankruptcy Law Family Law Contracts Tax Law

Bankruptcy Law

[03/08] Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. US
In an action by a law firm seeking declaratory relief, arguing that plaintiff was not bound by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act's (BAPCPA) debt relief agency provisions and therefore could freely advise clients to incur additional debt and need not make the requisite disclosures in its advertisements, the Eighth Circuit's order rejecting the district court's conclusion that attorneys are not "debt relief agencies" under BAPCPA, upholding application of BAPCPA's disclosure requirements to attorneys, and finding BAPCPA section 526(a)(4) unconstitutional, is affirmed in part where: 1) attorneys who provided bankruptcy assistance to assisted persons were debt relief agencies under the BAPCPA; and 2) BAPCPA section 528's requirements were reasonably related to the government's interest in preventing consumer deception. However, the court of appeals' order is reversed in part where BAPCPA section 526(a)(4) prohibited a debt relief agency only from advising a debtor to incur more debt because the debtor was filing for bankruptcy, rather than for a valid purpose.

[03/08] In Re: Ray
District court's judgment affirming the bankruptcy court's dismissal of two Chapter 11 proceedings was correct, but the decision is vacated, as the law firm lacked standing where there is no evidence that one of the law firm's former attorneys ever informed the bankruptcy court that it was appearing on behalf of the firm and the record is devoid of any mention of the firm by the attorney or any other party.

[02/15] In re: Barner
In debtor's appeal from the bankruptcy court's ruling finding that an automatic stay did not apply to a foreclosure sale of her home, the order is affirmed where: 1) 11 U.S.C. sections 362(d)(4) and (b)(20) did not prohibit enforcement of a 2004 order lifting the automatic stay as to debtor's residence; and 2) the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act did not modify or affect orders issued in cases filed before its effective date.

More...

Family Law

[03/05] People v. Warwick
Conviction of defendant of child abuse and neglect and jury's true finding on the enhancement that she personally inflicted great bodily injury on her child is affirmed as, when she gave birth to her son in her bedroom and concealed the birth causing severe injuries, defendant inflicted great bodily injury on her child.

[03/05] Doe v. S. Carolina Dep't of Soc. Servs.
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action brought by a minor child and her adoptive parents against defendant, an Adoption Specialist with the South Carolina Department of Social Services (SCDSS), alleging violations of their substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and state law claims against SCDSS under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act (SCTCA), judgment is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded where: 1) when a state involuntarily removes a child from her home, thereby taking the child into its custody and care, the state has taken an affirmative act to restrain the child's liberty, triggering the protections of the Due Process Clause and imposing "some responsibility for the child's safety and general well being"; 2) because it would not have been apparent to a reasonable social worker in defendant's position that her actions violated the Fourteenth Amendment, she is entitled to qualified immunity; 3) prospective adoptive parents have no substantive due process right to the disclosure of a child's history of sexual abuse; and 4) district court's grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment on the state law claims for gross negligence against SCDSS is vacated and remanded for consideration of the applicability of section 15-78-60(25).

[03/04] In re E.O.
Juvenile court's denial of a father's request for presumed father status is affirmed as the only provision of Family Code section 7611 that might possibly apply is subdivision (d) which states that a man is a presumed father if he "receives the child into his home and openly holds out the child as his natural child," and here, the father did not establish that he came within this or any of the categories set forth in Family Code section 7611.

More...

Contracts

[03/10] Anchor Sav. Bank, FSB v. US
In one of the last Winstar cases arising out of the savings and loan crisis of the late 1970s and early 1980s, involving a plaintiff's suit alleging that the adoption of the FIRREA and its implementing regulations breached the government's obligations under supervisory merger contracts, judgment of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff is affirmed in part and remanded in part where: 1) the trial court did not commit clear err in finding that it was foreseeable that the breach would result in lost profits to plaintiff in an amount commensurate with the ultimate award for lost profits; 2) the trial court did not err in finding of a causal connection between the government's breach of contract and plaintiff's sale of RFC (a mortgage banking company); 3) the trial court did not err in awarding lost profit damages attributable to plaintiff's forced sale of RFC; 4) the trial court permissibly concluded that NAMCO (mortgage company) was a reasonable commercial substitute for RFC, and its purchase thus qualified as mitigation for the loss of RFC; but 5) the case is remanded to allow the trial court to determine whether an error was made in offsetting plaintiff's mitigation costs by NAMCO's retained earnings through 1997 and, if so, how to correct the error.

[03/10] Milwaukee Metro. Sewerage Dist. v. American Int'l Specilaty Lines Ins. Co.
In a sewerage district's suit for damages against an environmental liability insurer for denying coverage for costs incurred by the district in removing significant pollution on land it recently purchased, district court's judgment is reversed and remanded as the district court's finding that there was clear and convincing proof that a prior agreement existed between the insurance company and the sewerage district that the parcel would be covered property was clearly erroneous. Therefore, defendant is entitled to judgment on the sewerage district's reformation claim and, as a consequence, judgment in favor of defendant on its indemnity claim is vacated.

[03/10] Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. v. VCG Special Opportunities Master Fund Ltd.
In an appeal from a district court's order granting plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction and enjoining defendant from proceeding with an arbitration initiated against plaintiff before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, the order is affirmed where the "serious questions" standard for assessing a movant's likelihood of success on the merits remains valid in the wake of recent Supreme Court cases, and neither the district court's assessment of the facts nor its application of the law supported a finding of abuse of discretion.

More...

Tax Law

[03/10] Hesse v. Sprint Corp.
In a class action alleging that defendant Sprint Corp. unlawfully collected a Washington state tax from Washington customers, summary judgment for defendant is vacated and remanded where a prior class action settlement challenged Sprint's billing of customers for certain federal regulatory fees, and the Washington plaintiffs' interests were not adequately represented in that litigation.

[03/05] Mike v. Franchise Tax Bd.
In an action by the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) to collect income tax from petitioner, an American Indian, for receiving more than $385,000 as her per capita distribution from her tribe's gaming operations on their reservation, trial court's entry of judgment in favor of FTB is affirmed as, the State of California may impose income tax on income received by an enrolled member of a tribe from his or her tribe's reservation activities when that member resides on the reservation of a different tribe.

[03/04] New York v. Golden Feather Smoke Shop, Inc.
In defendants' appeal from a preliminary injunction prohibiting the sale of untaxed cigarettes other than to members of the Unkechauge Nation for their personal use, the Second Circuit certifies the following questions to the New York Court of Appeals: 1) Does N.Y. Tax Law section 471-e, either by itself or in combination with the provisions of section 471, impose a tax on cigarettes sold on Native American reservations when some or all of those cigarettes may be sold to persons other than members of the reservation's nation or tribe?; 2) If the answer to Question 1 is "no," does N.Y. Tax Law section 471 alone impose a tax on cigarettes sold on Native American reservations when some or all of those cigarettes may be sold to persons other than members of the reservation's nation or tribe?

More...