Abrams v. Saint Felix (In re Miller)

Summarized by Paul Avron , Berger Singerman LLP
15 years 3 weeks ago

Citation:

Case No. 10-12085 (11th Cir. Feb. 10, 2011)

Tag(s):

11th Circuit

Ruling:

The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's award of Rule 9011 sanctions because the motion for sanctions did not identify with specificty the conduct alleged to be sanctionable as required by Rule 9011(c)(1)(A).

Procedural context:

A Rule 11 motion was served upon the plaintiff/trustee in an adversary proceeeding to avoid a transfer of real property to the defendant/sanctions movant.

Facts:

The trustee in bankruptcy sued Mr. Saint Felix to recover an alleged fraudulent transfer to him by the debtor of real property. In response, Mr. Sanit Felix served a Rule 11 motion. SImultaneously with service of the Rule 11 moion, Mr. Saint Felix filed a motion to dismiss; however, he subsequently withdrew the motion to dismiss and then filed a motion for summary judgment. Of note, the motion for sanctions did not refer to or incorporate the bases for the motion to dismiss. Contrary to the requirement of Rule 9011(c)(1)(A), the sanctions motion did not identify the alleged sanctionable conduct. Nevertheless, the bankruptcy court imposed sanctions which award was affirmed by the district court. On further appeal, the Eleventh Circuit held that the award of sanctions was an abuse of discretion because the sanctions motion did not identify the alleged sanctionable conduct. The Eleventh Circuit rejected Mr. Saint Felix's argument that notice was provided by the contemporaneously filed motion to didmiss, explaining that the rule required the sanctions motion to include that information and in any event the sanctions motion did not refer to or incorporate the motion to dismiss which, in fact, was subsequently withdrawn.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!