Case Updates

In Boschetti v. Pacific Bay Investments Inc., 2019 Cal. App. LEXIS 193, filed on March 7, 2019, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District held that Boschetti, a partner of a California general partnership, could not enforce California statutory buy-out provisions upon dissolution of foreign limited partnerships and limited liability companies owned by the general partnership. Read more

A bankruptcy court in South Carolina has held that a trustee may invoke the power of the IRS to avoid the debtors' disclaimer of settlement proceeds, even though other unsecured creditors could not have done so under applicable state law. [In re Gaither, 2018 Westlaw 6287971 (Bankr. D. S.C.).] Read more

The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine has held that an unauthorized modification of a commercial lease was extinguished when the holder of the senior mortgage foreclosed on the landlord’s interest in the property. [Littlebrook Airpark Condominium Association vs. Sweet Peas, LLC, 2019 Westlaw 123599 (Maine).] Read more

A bankruptcy court in Delaware has held that the "waterfall" provisions contained in an intercreditor agreement barred all distributions to a group of junior lienholders in a Chapter 11 case until the senior lender had been paid in full. [In re La Paloma Generating Co., 2018 Westlaw 6022271 (Bankr. D. Del.).] Read more

A bankruptcy court in New York has held that a note and mortgage were unenforceable because the alleged assignee failed to show that it was the holder of the note, despite an endorsement in blank, a corporate assignment, and physical possession of the note. [In re Pinnock, 2018 Westlaw 5794442 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.).] Read more

MICRA notice of intent to sue does not toll Government Claims Act deadlines. Plaintiff Jamie Harper was allegedly injured during a surgery at the Modoc Medical Center, a public entity. Almost a year later, her counsel sent Modoc notice of intent to sue, as required by MICRA. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 364.) Modoc treated the notice as a government claim, and rejected it as untimely. (See Gov. Code, § 911.2, subd. (a) [notice of claim must be submitted within 6 months after the cause of action accrues].) Read more

The Sixth Circuit has held that even though the statute of limitations applicable to a mortgage reseller's repurchase claim against the seller had run, the reseller's claim for indemnification was not time-barred. [Franklin American Mortgage Co. vs. University National Bank of Lawrence, 2018 Westlaw 6377719 (6th Cir.).] Read more

A bankruptcy court in Ohio, applying Alabama law, has held that a trustee could not qualify as a hypothetical bona fide purchaser of a bankrupt's real property because a recorded power of attorney did not expressly authorize the daughter to convey her mother's real property to herself. [In re Shelton, 2018 Westlaw 5098814 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio).] Read more

The Fifth Circuit has held that the applicable state statute of limitations governing secured creditors' deficiency suits did not begin to run until the creditor has sold all of the items covered by a cross-collateralization clause contained in the parties’ agreements. [Volvo Financial Services vs. Williamson, 2018 Westlaw 6333781 (5th Cir.).] Read more

A monthly publication of the Litigation Section of the California Lawyers Association. Read more