Patel v. Patel (In re Patel)
- Summarized by Jonathan Batiste , Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
- 7 months 1 day ago
- Case Type:
- Consumer
- Case Status:
- Affirmed
- Citation:
- No. 23-12847 (11th Circuit, Jul 08,2025) Published
- Tag(s):
-
- Ruling:
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed the other courts’ decisions against Debtor. The Court’s ruling that limits district courts’ ability to retroactively confer jurisdiction to state courts does not apply to the bankruptcy courts’ annulment powers. The bankruptcy courts’ annulment powers are distinct from the inherent judicial power to correct mistakes or omissions in the record through nunc pro tunc orders. A party’s failure to file a separate motion can be a harmless error when a case’s procedural history is sufficiently informative.
- Procedural context:
- Debtor filed for bankruptcy in 2016. Debtor participated in an arbitration proceeding despite the bankruptcy case. He lost and filed a petition to vacate the decision in a state court, which affirmed the arbitration decision. Debtor then sought relief in the bankruptcy court, which granted a creditor’s request to annul the automatic stay. Debtor then appealed to the district court, which affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision, and then to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
- Facts:
- Debtor filed for bankruptcy in 2016 after the Great Recession destroyed the $250 million conglomerate his family started. Debtor then participated in arbitration with creditors and downplayed the bankruptcy. He tried to use the automatic stay as a poison pill after the arbitrator entered an award against him, but the 30-day deadline to amend the award had expired. Debtor then petitioned a state court to vacate the award because of the automatic stay, but the state court affirmed the award. He then sought relief through the bankruptcy court, but the bankruptcy court granted a creditor’s request to annul the automatic stay. The bankruptcy court found that Debtor violated the automatic stay and that his conduct weighed in favor of annulling the stay because he attempted to abuse it. Debtor argued that the Court’s decision in Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan v. Acevedo Feliciano prevented the bankruptcy court from annulling the stay. The bankruptcy court concluded that the Court’s decision did not pertain to the bankruptcy court’s annulment powers. The bankruptcy court further found that the creditor’s failure to file a separate motion did not justify rejecting the request to annul the stay because the procedural history sufficiently informed Debtor of the creditor’s intent. Debtor appealed the bankruptcy court’s decision to the district court, which affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision. Debtor then appealed the district court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. Debtor’s arguments conflated nunc pro tunc orders with annulments. Those arguments reflect a misunderstanding of jurisdiction and misapply Acevedo. Congress granted explicit powers to the bankruptcy courts to manage bankruptcy estates, and Acevado does not strip the courts of those powers.
- Judge(s):
- Pryor, Grant, and Kidd
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!
