Savage v. Brill (In re Savage)
- Summarized by Joel Newell , Ballard Spahr, LLP
- 10 years 9 months ago
- Citation:
- Ninth Circuit Banruptcy Appellate Panel Case No. EC-14-1074-JuKuPa (May 20, 2015)
- Tag(s):
-
- Ruling:
- In the unpublished decision, the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel ("BAP") affirmed the bankruptcy court's order denying the Steven J. Savage's ("Debtor") motion for attorneys fees related to the prior adversary litigation with Leonard Brill ("Brill"). The BAP determined that once Brill obtained a judgment related to the under line contract, the contractual rights were merged into and extinguished by the terms of the judgment; therefore, the mutuality provision of California statute did not extend to the Debtor. The related bankruptcy court trial was based on 11 U.S.C. Sec. 727; therefore, no supporting facts related to a breach of contract claim.
- Procedural context:
- After the bankruptcy court denied Brill's adversary seeking revocation of the Debtor's discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sec. 727, the Debtor filed motion requesting an award of attorney fees related to defending the adversary. The bankruptcy court denied the Debtor's motion and the Debtor timely appealed.
- Facts:
- Prior to the Chapter 7, Brill entered into an agreement with California Designer Cabinets ("CDC"). A dispute arose between CDC and Brill, and Brill ultimately was awarded a judgment against CDC. the Debtor file Chapter 7 shortly after the state court judgment was entered. Brill commenced an adversary proceeding against the Debtors pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Secs. 523 and 727. Brill did not present any evidence related to the 11 U.S.C. Sec. 523 claim. After the trial, the bankruptcy court entered a judgment in favor of the Debtor. The bankruptcy court's ruling in favor of the Debtor was based in party on the fact that the pre-Petition contract was between Brill and CDC, not the Debtor, and, the Debtor's omissions on the schedules were a mistake. The Debtor then sought an award of attorneys fees asserting that based on the Debtor prevailing they should be awarded attorney fees pursuant to the contract Brill in part based his claim in the administrative bankruptcy case.
- Judge(s):
- JURY, KURTZ, and PAPPAS, Bankruptcy Judges.
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!
