Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Commentary : In Their Opinion : Lawyer & Attorney Michael E. Rigney : Kelley Drye & Warren Law Firm

REEVES v. DAVIS (March 14, 2011)

Linda Reeves hired Gerald Davis to help her with some home renovations. Although he represented himself to be licensed and insured, he was not. After she paid him almost $60,000, Davis left the job incomplete. A state court entered judgment in Reeves' favor, concluding that Davis violated the Indiana Home Improvements Contracts Act. The court specifically found that Davis committed a "deceptive act" under the statute. The court also made a factual finding that the contract covered the construction of a porch, although it did so by concluding that the contract lacked specificity and that any uncertainty should be resolved against Davis. Before Reeves collected any money, Davis petitioned for bankruptcy. Reeves filed an action asserting that the debt was non-dischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A), which does not discharge a debt that is obtained by "false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud." The bankruptcy court rejected her collateral estoppel argument, held its own trial, found that the contract may not have included a porch, concluded that Davis did not have the requisite § 523 fraudulent intent, and ruled the debt discharged. Judge Magnus-Stinson (S.D. Ind.) affirmed. Reeves appeals.

In their opinion, Circuit Judges Flaum and Williams and District Judge Herndon affirmed. The Court stated that § 523 requires, among other things, a showing that Davis possessed an intent to deceive. Reeves argued that the state court's factual finding that the contract included the porch coupled with Davis' admission that he never intended to build one established that intent. The Court agreed with Reeves on the first point and concluded that the bankruptcy court should have deferred to the state court’s factual finding. But the state court did not make a finding regarding his intent. The Court noted that his own testimony that he never intended to build a porch must be taken in context with his testimony that he did not believe the contract called for one. The bankruptcy court did not clearly err when it concluded that Davis did not possess fraudulent intent.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

FOLLETT HIGHER EDUCATION GROUP v. BERMAN (January 21, 2011)

Berman & Associates (“B&A”) is an Illinois advertising brokerage firm. It places ads in media outlets for a fee. One of its clients is Follett Higher Education Group, a college bookstore management company. Under their contract, Follett agreed to pay B&A 110% of the purchased ads. B&A then paid the outlet directly, retaining the 10% as its fee. In mid-2006, Follett discovered that B&A had not paid for some of the purchased advertising. Follett paid the bills directly. In August of that year, Jay Berman (the sole shareholder of B&A) petitioned for personal bankruptcy. He listed B&A’s debts in his petition. Follett brought an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy, asserting that the debt was non-dischargeable under § 523(a)(4) because Berman had breached a fiduciary duty. The bankruptcy court found for Berman, concluding that Follett had failed to prove that Berman or B&A was a fiduciary. Judge Dow (N.D. Ill.) affirmed. Follett appeals.

In their opinion, Seventh Circuit Judges Kanne, Tinder, and Hamilton affirmed. The Court noted that generally a debtor's debts are discharged in bankruptcy. One of the exceptions to that rule comes in § 523(a)(4), which applies to a "defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity." In order to establish the exception, the creditor must establish that the debtor was a fiduciary to the creditor when the debt originated and that the debt was caused by defalcation or fraud. The only issue on appeal was whether Berman or B&A acted as a fiduciary. The Court rejected both of Follett's theories. The first theory was that Berman was a fiduciary and relied on the Illinois principle that a corporate director owes a fiduciary duty to the corporation, its shareholders, and (upon insolvency) its creditors. But the Court noted that not every fiduciary created by state law acts "in a fiduciary capacity" under § 523. The special relationship must have existed before and be unrelated to the alleged wrong. Therefore, a director's fiduciary obligation to a creditor, created upon insolvency, does not transform the pre-insolvency relationships to fiduciary ones. Berman is therefore not a § 523 fiduciary to Follett. Under Follett's second theory, B&A is the fiduciary under the contract and Jay Berman is personally liable under a veil piercing argument. The Supreme Court has cautioned against finding a fiduciary duty in a ordinary commercial transaction, even though most commercial transactions involve some semblance of trust. A § 523 fiduciary should be found only where there is an express trust or an implied fiduciary status imposed by law. The Court addressed each in turn. With respect to an express trust, the Court found nothing in the contracts that supported an intent to create a trust. There were neither separate accounts nor segregation of funds. The Court turned to the implied fiduciary status issue. Generally speaking, contract obligations do not establish a § 523 fiduciary relationship. The Court referred to its decision in Frain, were it found that relationship in the context of a contract among shareholders. But in Frain, the debtor was the corporation's CEO and thus had a natural knowledge advantage. He also had "ultimate power" through his day-to-day control of the business. Here, there are no special confidences, no knowledge or power disparity, and no duties created by law. The relationship is simply a contractual one and does not fit within the § 523(a)(4) exception.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

OJEDA v. GOLDBERG (March 25, 2010)

Gail and Ronald Goldberg were in the business of making high risk loans. They made such a loan in the amount of $600,000 to Ernest and Beverly Ojeda. The Ojedas provided stock valued at $800,000 as collateral. The original loan agreement was executed in August of 1998, with an original maturity date of October of 1998. The maturity date was extended many times, and the Ojedas continued to pay monthly interest until January of 2006. In late 1999, the company whose stock secured the original loan executed a reverse stock split, significantly reducing the number of shares and value of the collateral. At the time of one of the loan extensions in late 2001, two entities owned by the Ojedas, both of which owned McDonald's restaurants, guaranteed the note. Another maturity date came and went – and the Ojedas continued to make the monthly interest payments. In 2004, the Ojedas sold their interest in the McDonald's restaurants and used the proceeds to pay off creditors and to buy a pizza franchise. The Ojedas ultimately defaulted on the note in January of 2006, the pizza franchise failed a month later, and the Ojedas entered bankruptcy. In the bankruptcy proceeding, the Goldbergs asserted that the Ojedas’ liability on the $600,000 loan should be non-dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). The bankruptcy court concluded that the Goldberg's were not justified in relying either on the value of the stock or the ownership in the restaurants and further concluded that, if there was reliance, the only amount excluded from discharge would be attorney's fees and unpaid interest. The district court reversed, concluding that reliance on the restaurant ownership was justified and that the entire amount was excepted from discharge. The Ojedas appeal.

In their opinion, Judges Kanne, Rovner, and Williams affirmed. The Court first set forth the elements of a discharge exception under § 523(a)(2)(A): a debtor’s false representation, the debtor's knowledge of the falsity or reckless disregard for the truth, an intent to deceive, and justifiable reliance. The first three elements were not seriously contested. With respect to justifiable reliance, the Court noted that it is a lower standard than reasonable reliance, and only requires that one not rely "blindly" on a false representation if the falsity would have been obvious upon cursory investigation. Applying that test, the Court found no clear error in the bankruptcy court's determination that the Goldberg's reliance on the stock shares was not justified. Ronald Goldberg was an experienced businessman and he was aware of the company's troubles. He therefore should have made inquiry before continuing to extend the note. The Court found error, however, in the bankruptcy court's conclusion that the Goldberg's reliance on the Ojeda’s restaurant ownership was not justifiable. The Court concluded that the Goldbergs had no information that would have alerted them to the sale of the restaurants. Even though the restaurants did not secure the debt, the companies that owned the restaurants did guarantee the note. The sale of the restaurants materially affected each company's ability to perform as guarantors. Next, the Court concluded that the fraudulently induced forbearance fit within the definition of an "extension" or "renewal" of credit under § 523. Finally, the Court addressed the issue of the extent to which the forbearance was obtained by false pretenses. The test is whether the creditor: a) had collection remedies at the time of the false representation, b) did not take advantage of the remedies because of the false representation, and c) the remedies lost value during the extension period. The Court concluded that the Goldbergs met the test since the Ojedas had significant assets in 2004 that no longer existed at the time of default. Since the Goldberg's forbearance applied to the entire debt, the Court concluded that the entire debt was excepted from discharge, notwithstanding that the original loan involved no deception.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link