Anna Juravin v. Florida Bankruptcy Trustee
When a trustee mistakenly seizes a nondebtor’s property, the Barton doctrine by itself doesn’t protect the trustee, but judicial estoppel does.
- Rochelle Quick Take
View Rochelle Summary- Case Type:
- Consumer
- Case Status:
- Affirmed
- Citation:
- 22-11356 (11th Circuit, Nov 05,2024) Published
- Tag(s):
- Ruling:
- When seizing assets pursuant to a court order, a bankruptcy trustee has judicial immunity so long as they act within the scope of their authority as court-appointed officers. In the case at hand, the bankruptcy trustee acted within the scope of his authority because the debtor had failed to produce information about his financial condition, thus preventing the trustee from executing his duties. Judicial immunity protects court-appointed officers even if they act in error, maliciously, or in excess of the appointing court's jurisdiction. I
- Procedural context:
- The appellants filed an action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, arguing that the Bankruptcy Trustee had seized assets that did not belong to the debtor. The district court dismissed the case because the appellants failed to comply with the requirements of the Barton doctrine. The appellants appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
- Facts:
- In 2015, the Federal Trade Commission sued Don Karl Juravin and several of his companies for violating federal consumer protection laws. Don filed a Chapter 7 case in 2018 and listed the FTC as a creditor. The district court for the Middle District of Florida entered a $25,246,000 judgment against Don and his companies, with joint and several liability. Don failed to disclose financial information relevant to his estate. The bankruptcy trustee, Dennis Kennedy, moved for a Break Order (a "Break Order" is an order issued under Florida law that is the equivalent of a writ of replevin) in order to search Don's home and to seize or photograph assets that were property of the Chapter 7 estate. The bankruptcy court granted the motion and allowed the bankruptcy trustee to seize or photograph (1) all business records belonging to Don's companies; (2) all electronic communication devices on the premises containing information about Don, his business interests, and property of the bankruptcy estate; (3) Don's wristwatch collection; and (4) "[a]ny additional items Trustee, in his sole discretion, reasonably believes to be part of the bankruptcy estate." The bankruptcy trustee, his attorneys, and the United States Marshals Service executed the Break Order. Don's wife and two children were home at the time. The trustee seized Apple computers, iPads, cellphones, Don's watch collection, and several boxes of documents. Don and his wife then moved to have Dennis Kennedy removed from his position as trustee and to disqualify Kennedy's counsel. The following day, Don and his wife, on their own behalf and on behalf of their children and United Medical Group International, Inc. (a company affiliated with Don's wife) commenced an action in the district court that alleged that the trustee seized items that were not Don's and thus not subject to the Break Order. Don withdrew from the suit about three weeks after it was filed. The defendants moved to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. The district court granted the motion because plaintiffs had failed to comply with the requirements of the Barton doctrine.
- Judge(s):
- ROSENBAUM, ABUDU, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges
