Shirley White-Lett v. The Bank of New York Mellon
- Summarized by Jonathan Batiste , Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
- 2 months 2 days ago
- Case Type:
- Consumer
- Case Status:
- Affirmed
- Citation:
- No. 24-13915 (11th Circuit, Dec 11,2025) Not Published
- Tag(s):
-
- Ruling:
- By not previously bringing claims against Creditor, Debtor forfeited such claims after reaching a settlement agreement with Creditor. While the settlement agreement contains a carve-out provision for claims at issue in an existing appeal, Debtor’s existing appeal did not relate to claims against Creditor. Thus, the settlement agreement barred Debtor’s claims against Creditor.
- Procedural context:
- Debtor filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2010. The court granted her a discharge in 2012. Debtor filed a state suit against her creditors in 2013, but the state court dismissed the suit. Debtor later filed a federal suit against her creditors. She also sought to reopen her bankruptcy case in 2020. The bankruptcy court reopened the case, and Debtor filed multiple adversary proceedings against her creditors. The proceedings led to Debtor and Settlement Creditor reaching a settlement agreement. Then Debtor filed another adversary proceeding, this time against Settlement Creditor. The bankruptcy court found against Debtor in the third adversary proceeding, and she appealed. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision, and Debtor appealed again,
- Facts:
- Shirley White-Lett (“Debtor”) filed for bankruptcy after taking out a loan, using her home as collateral, for $636,000 in 2005. The loan had multiple servicers. Some of those servicers tried to collect the debt after Debtor received a discharge in 2012. She sought to reopen her bankruptcy case in 2020, claiming that the servicers violated the discharge injunction. After the bankruptcy court reopened Debtor’s case, it determined that a servicer had violated the discharge injunction. She settled with another creditor, Bank of New York Mellon (“Settlement Creditor”), after filing a different adversary proceeding. As part of the settlement, Debtor released her claims against Settlement Creditor. The settlement, however, contained a carve-out provision for certain claims. Then, Debtor filed a third adversary proceeding, this time against Settlement Creditor. She claimed that Settlement Creditor should be sanctioned because another creditor had violated the discharge injunction. The courts found that the settlement agreement blocks those claims and that the claims do not fall under the carve-out provision. The claims do not fall under the carve-out provision because Debtor had not previously raised them.
- Judge(s):
- Jill Pryor, Lagoa, and Wilson
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!
