Michael Tindall v. Samuel Sweet
- Summarized by Jonathan Batiste , Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
- 3 months 3 weeks ago
- Case Type:
- Consumer
- Case Status:
- Affirmed
- Citation:
- No. 24-1945 (6th Circuit, Nov 04,2025) Not Published
- Tag(s):
-
- Ruling:
- Appellant forfeited his challenge to the bankruptcy court’s alternate rationale for its decision by not briefing it. The circuit court can affirm the judgment based on the alternate rationale. District courts lack jurisdiction over interim bankruptcy court decisions about attorney’s fees that have not conclusively determined compensation for the attorneys. Inadequately developed arguments are also grounds for forfeiture. The imposition of disbarment orders that local rules require judges to impose does not justify recusal.
- Procedural context:
- Debtor filed for bankruptcy in 2012. The parties participated in multiple adversary proceedings over the next eight years. A new trustee took over after the original trustee retired. The Michigan Attorney Discipline Board disbarred Appellant, who represented multiple parties in the bankruptcy. Appellant tried to appeal multiple issues.
- Facts:
- Christopher Wyman (“Debtor”) filed for bankruptcy in 2012, listing less than $6,000 in assets and over $866,000 in liabilities. Debtor fraudulently transferred real property to a third party, Michelle Pichler (“Transferee”). Barbara Duggan (“Creditor”) and the first trustee hired Michael Tindall (“Appellant”) to represent them in avoiding the fraudulent transfer. Appellant opened an adversary proceeding against Transferee in 2012. Appellant lied to the bankruptcy court to obtain a default judgment, claiming that Transferee did not turn over required documents. The court held that Appellant committed fraud on the court and vacated the default judgment in 2017. Before that, Samuel Sweet (“Appellee”) took over as trustee, and the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board disbarred Appellant for unrelated conduct. The court had dismissed Creditor’s adversary proceeding in 2012 after she could not find another attorney to represent her. Appellee and Transferee settled, with Transferee agreeing to transfer the real property to the bankruptcy estate. The court dismissed the adversary proceeding in 2018. Creditor assigned an interest in her claim to Appellant. Appellee sold the real property for $65,000 in 2019. He also initiated an adversary proceeding against Creditor to have her declared an unsecured creditor. Appellee agreed to pay Creditor the full amount of her claim plus interest. Appellant and Creditor decided to raise a counterclaim alleging that Appellee breached his fiduciary duty. Then Appellee filed a summary-judgment motion based on absolute immunity because he was following a court order. Appellant and Creditor tried and failed to transfer their counterclaim to the district court. The bankruptcy court then granted Appellee’s summary-judgment motion. Appellant and Appellee then made arguments about attorney’s fees, and the court granted both parties entitlement to attorney’s fees. Appellant reappeared in 2022, moving to vacate the judgment as void based on alleged violations of due process. The court denied Appellant’s motion to vacate the judgment on two grounds, but Appellant only raised one of the grounds on appeal. Appellant also argued that the district judge wrongly refused to recuse herself from his appeal, claiming that the judge had bias against him because she was the judge who entered the order disbarring him in 2017.
- Judge(s):
- White, Stranch, and Murphy
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!
