Does a Chapter 7 debtor have appellate standing to protect the homestead exemption?

That’s an issue addressed (sort of) in Karamoussayan v Massachusetts Department of Revenue (In re Karamoussayan), Case No. 22-041, First Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (decided April 11, 2024).

Chronology

Here’s a chronology.

September 9, 2022 — Debtor files a voluntary Chapter 13 petition

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently held that the anti-modification provision in the federal Bankruptcy Code applies to loans secured by mixed-use real properties, such as the large parcel at issue here which functioned both for commercial use and as the debtor’s principal residence.

A copy of the opinion in Lee v. U.S. Bank National Association is available at: Link to Opinion.

Highlights

On May 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed a district court’s decision, ruling that American tribes are not exempt from federal law barring suits against debtors once they file for bankruptcy.

Debtors who ignore instructions from the Bankruptcy Court do so at their own peril, as a recent case from the First Circuit Court of Appeals illustrates.

In In re Palladino, 942 F.3d 55 (1st Cir. 2019), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit addressed whether a debtor receives “reasonably equivalent value” in exchange for paying his adult child’s college tuition. The Palladino court answered this question in the negative, thereby contributing to the growing circuit split regarding the avoidability of debtors’ college tuition payments for their adult children as constructively fraudulent transfers.

Background

Yes, says the First Circuit. The First Circuit recently affirmed the District Court’s decision to deny a group of bondholders’ (the “Bondholders”) motion to have a trustee appointed for the Employees Retirement System of the Government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (the “System”) under section 926 of the Bankruptcy Code. Section 926 of the Bankruptcy Code allows a court to appoint a trustee to pursue avoidance actions in Chapter 9 cases.

The Bottom Line

In Wheeling & Lake Erie Ry. Co. v. Keach (In re Montreal, Me. & Atl. Ry.), No. 19-1894 (1st Cir. Apr. 9, 2020), the First Circuit held that when determining the value of legal claims as collateral, the party with the burden of proof must establish the likely validity of the claim and the likelihood of recovery — demonstrating possible damages alone does not suffice.

What Happened?

Background

In a recent decision, the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the rejection by a licensor of a trademark license stripped the licensee of its right to use the trademark post-rejection, reversing a decision by the intermediate bankruptcy appellate panel (BAP) and reinstating the bankruptcy court’s original judgment. In re Tempnology, LLC, 2018 WL 387621 (1st Cir. Jan. 12, 2018), reversing in part 559 B.R. 809 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2016). The First Circuit did, however, affirm that the rejection stripped the licensee's exclusive product distribution rights.

Since PROMESA was enacted in 2016 to pave the way for a comprehensive restructuring of Puerto Rico’s mounting municipal debt obligations, the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico (District Court) has become a haven for litigious groups of creditors and other constituencies. Undoubtedly frustrated with the progress and trajectory of the cases of the commonwealth and its subsidiaries, these groups have mounted a number of complex legal attacks to the efficacy and validity of PROMESA. However, the debtors recently secured a significant win in Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd.