Showing posts with label Bankruptcy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bankruptcy. Show all posts

Thursday, April 3, 2014

Judge Weighs Sanctions in Favor of Anna Nicole Estate

Judge Weighs Sanctions in Favor of Anna Nicole Estate


, The National Law Journal    |5 Comments
Anna Nicole Smith
Anna Nicole Smith
A federal judge is set to decide whether to impose sanctions of up to $44 million against the estate of Anna Nicole Smith’s former stepson.
The sanctions come in a claim originally filed by E. Pierce Marshall, the son of Smith’s late husband, Texas oil tycoon J. Howard Marshall, against the former Playboy model, who had filed for U.S. bankruptcy protection. The younger Marshall died in 2006 and Smith died of a drug overdose in 2007.
Just before a hearing on Monday, U.S. District Judge David Carter in the Central District of California wrote in a tentative order that he had several “open questions” left unresolved as to the scope of sanctions he ordered last year against the younger Marshall’s estate. He has tentatively scheduled a trial on the matter for April 29.
The circumstances of the case date back nearly two decades.
In 2000, a U.S. bankruptcy judge granted $474 million to Smith, whose real name was Vickie Lynn Marshall, after she alleged her late husband had intended to give her half his estate. Carter, who took over the dispute, vacated the order on jurisdictional ground. He granted $89 million to Smith.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed that award in 2004, citing a Texas probate court’s final judgment in 2001 over the elder Marshall’s estate, but the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed federal jurisdiction over the case. In a second appeal, the Supreme Court struck down the bankruptcy judge’s authority to issue an award.
Acting on the Ninth Circuit’s mandate on remand, Carter on May 29 upheld final judgment for the younger Marshall’s estate. But he also allowed Smith’s estate, represented by her former attorney and partner, Howard K. Stern, to pursue a motion for sanctions against the estate, represented by the son’s widow, Elaine Marshall. Carter also issued an order to show why a former attorney for the elder Marshall’s estate, Edwin Hunter, who is the son of the late U.S. District Judge Edwin Hunter in the Western District of Louisiana, should not be sanctioned.
“Here, there is considerable evidence showing the bad faith of Edwin Hunter and Pierce Marshall,” Carter wrote. On Dec. 9, Carter vacated his order for possible sanctions against Hunter, citing revelations of a 2000 settlement agreement between the attorney and Smith that resolved all claims for sanctions.
In an Oct. 3 motion, an attorney for Smith’s estate, Philip Boesch, founder of the Boesch Law Group in Santa Monica, Calif., argued that the younger Marshall failed to turn over a trust document that was critical in the case, destroyed other documents and, along with Hunter, lied about their actions and other details while scheming to prevent any payment to Smith.
Boesch’s initial request was for nearly $44.3 million—the amount of compensatory damages once awarded to Smith’s estate. But in subsequent filings, he offered an alternative request of $25 million. “Any dollar figure within his discretion would be appropriate,” Boesch said.
In court papers, Elaine Marshall’s attorney, G. Eric Brunstad, a partner at Dechert in Hartford, Conn., called the sanctions request a “thinly veiled effort” to win back the Smith estate’s $89 million award. Brunstad did not return a call for comment.
On Monday, Carter issued a tentative order that raised numerous questions about the scope of what he could issue in terms of sanctions, especially given the jurisdictional problems surrounding the case.
“He is dealing with pretty complex legal issues,” Boesch said. “And since the case has already been up to the Supreme Court twice, we don’t have any problem at all with him being cautious and careful.”
Contact Amanda Bronstad at abronstad@alm.com.


Read more: http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202649312245/Judge-Weighs-Sanctions-in-Favor-of-Anna-Nicole-Estate#ixzz2xpJQfdgq

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

In Showing Undue Hardship, Court Is Not Allowed To Come Into Your House and Repurpose Your Wife

  • 24 May 2013 at 2:02 PM
  • 9th Circuit, Bankruptcy, Morrison & Foerster, Student Loans
  • In Showing Undue Hardship, Court Is Not Allowed To Come Into Your House and Repurpose Your Wife


    Regular readers of this blog know that you cannot discharge student loan obligations through bankruptcy absent a showing of undue hardship. If you go broke borrowing money for expensive cars, houses, and monkeys/butlers, no problem, file for bankruptcy and start over. But if you go broke trying to better yourself through education, the government will make you beg and prove that you are sad and hopeless. Wonderful system we’ve got here.
    We’ve also talked about how many people who might be eligible for undue hardship on their student debts don’t even try. The system is daunting and complicated, and I’ve argued that prostrating yourself in front of a bankruptcy court and letting them invade your life to the point of telling you how much you should be spending on your cell phone is not something that comes naturally to people with pride and dignity. This might be hard to understand for people who have never been in this situation, but I’d much rather be a “deadbeat” and have my wages garnished with the discretion on how I spend the rest than have some old judge tell me how much money I should be spending on breakfast.
    When trying the get your debts discharged through bankruptcy, there seems to be no limit to what a judge can take into account to see if you are really desperate.
    But a recent Ninth Circuit opinion upholding a discharge by reversing the district court put one boundary on what a court can look at to determine if you’ve tried to pay your debts in “good faith.”
    The court can’t look at your household and suggest that you pimp out your wife. So at least that’s something…

    The case arises out of the sad story of Michael Hedlund. Hedlund graduated from the University of Oregon and then Willamette Law School in 1997. He then failed the bar twice, missed a third opportunity to sit for the bar when he locked his keys in his car, and ended up as a juvenile counselor. He owed $85,000 in 1999 (can you imagine what that would be for a 2013 grad?), and defaulted on his loans. Bad things continued to happen, and eventually he filed for bankruptcy.
    Hedlund was represented, pro bono, by Morrison & Foerster San Francisco partner Derek Foran and associate Yonatan Braude.
    The question to the Ninth Circuit was whether or not Hedlund acted in “good faith” to “maximize his income and minimize his expense.” The bankruptcy court said that he did… even acknowledging that at this point, passing the bar and getting his law license would not materially improve his financial situation — Willamette Law School must be so proud.
    The district court reversed. They found Hedlund’s expenses “immoderate,” and his attempts to negotiate a suitable repayment plan “even more vexatious.” Apparently, Hedlund, who has a wife and kids, also has two cell phones and a second car lease. This struck the district court as a problem.
    Regardless of whether you think a family should have two whole cell phones, instead of just one, I want to point out that this is the kind of invasive discussion you can expect if you try to discharge your student debts.
    In terms of the repayment plans, Hedlund didn’t take some pre-trial offers made by his creditors. I’ve been in the situation where a creditor makes an “offer” that they think I should be able to pay but I can’t. I make a counter-offer that represents that maximum I can pay and still make my rent, the creditor thinks that I’m assuming a negotiating posture, and they get pissy. It’s a ridiculous game. The bankruptcy court didn’t think that Hedlund showed bad faith in rejecting the offers, the district court did.
    But to me, the most “vexatious” finding from the district court is this one:
    Finally, the court observed that Hedlund and his wife had chosen to live as a single-income family, “a life-style that few today can afford.”
    Who in the f**k does this court think it is? The Hedlunds have kids. The court has no right to dictate how they are cared for. For all we know, the wife’s earning potential wouldn’t cover child care costs. And even if it would, a court cannot essentially order a man to pimp out his wife to pay his debts. It’s one thing for a court to look at finances, but this crosses a line into judging the Hedlunds’ marital relationship. It’s disgusting. What’s the next step? “While Mrs. Hedlund doesn’t have a lot of skills, she is pretty and athletic enough to at least be a stripper, a fact that seems to not have occurred to Mr. Hedlund before filing for bankruptcy.”
    In reversing the district court, the Ninth Circuit addressed this directly:
    There was considerable evidence showing that Hedlund had maximized his income, and the [bankruptcy] court properly declined to attribute Mrs. Hedlund’s underemployment to Hedlund’s bad faith.
    Thank God. It’s hard enough to show undue hardship without that court judging what your wife does for a living.
    Just remember kids, if you are going to borrow money for something, borrow it for 3D televisions and expensive vacations. Borrowing money for your own education means you have to go through this kind of proceeding to even have a chance at starting over.
    Hedlund v. Educational Resources Institution [Opinion: Ninth Circuit]
    Earlier: Can You Show ‘Undue Hardship’ On Your Student Loans? You May

    Sunday, October 30, 2011

    Morning Docket: 10.27.11

    View Latest Cook County Probate Court
    Corruption and Fraud Videos at this blog site:

    http://northshorelive.blogspot.com/





    27 Oct 2011 at 9:08 AMPosted in:


    Airplanes / Aviation, Attorney Misconduct, Bankruptcy, Bernie Madoff, Howrey LLP, Law Schools, Legal Ethics, Morning Docket, Rod Blagojevich, Suicide

    Morning Docket: 10.27.11

    By Staci Zaretsky

    inShare..* Like many of the victims of Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, he and his wife contemplated suicide, too. But come on, why bother? Was career suicide just not good enough? [New York Times]

    * For Sale: One Illinois law license at discount price! Hasn’t been used in 15 years — almost like new. Slightly tarnished. If interested, please contact Rod Blagojevich ASAP. [Chicago Sun-Times]

    * Howrey gonna get paid? With a $3M bill and a new Chapter 11 bankruptcy trustee in place, that’s what all of these professional service firms are wondering. [Am Law Daily]

    * 1Ls may be dumber this year, but prospective law students have gotten 13% smarter. That isn’t saying much, though, because 68% of them still want to go to law school. [National Law Journal]

    * The TSA agent who advised this lawyer to “get her freak on” after spying a sexy personal item in her luggage has been professionally spanked. [New York Post]

    Please read complete article at link below:

    http://abovethelaw.com/2011/10/morning-docket-10-27-11/