DeLauro v. Porto (In re Porto)
- Summarized by Victoria Kothari , Latham, Shuker, Eden & Beaudine, LLP
- 13 years 6 months ago
- Citation:
- Nos. 09-15249 & 09-15251 (11th Cir. July 8, 2011)[Publish]
- Tag(s):
-
- Ruling:
- Multi-part ruling by Issue:
I. Finality and timeliness of appeal (unresolved attorney’s fees) – Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
Held Supreme Court decision (Budinich v. Becton Dickenson & Co., 486 U.S. 196 (1988)) applied to cases appealed from a district court exercising appellate review of a bankruptcy court’s order under 28U.S.C. §158(a). Budinich stands for position that attorney fee issues are collateral to the merits, a decision on the merits is immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. §1291. Key distinction – attorney’s fees awarded as sanction were separate from the merits of the case (i.e. collateral to the merits) vs. attorney’s fees awarded pursuant to a contract or computed as part of a damages award are substantive (Budinich not applicable). Where attorney’s fees are collateral appeal clock starts upon issuance of order resolving substantive claims.
II. Burden of proof for awarding sanctions – Vacated and Remanded.
A court must make specific findings as to the party’s conduct that warrants sanctions. Held bankruptcy court’s findings were inadequate. Cautioned against court engaging in post hoc reasoning - lack of merit does not equate to bad faith. Specific findings as to what sanctioned party (DeLauro) personally knew or did not know before his counsel filed the complaint.
III. District Court Order denying additional sanctions and taxation of costs – Affirmed.
On appeal there was no finding that district court abused its discretion.
- Procedural context:
- Appeal from district court’s orders affirming bankruptcy court’s order (1) discharging Porto’s debt to DeLauro, and (2) awarding sanctions against DeLauro for filing a frivolous objection to discharge; and (3) cross appeal of district court’s order denying Porto’s motion for additional sanctions and to tax costs.
- Facts:
- Porto ("Debtor") owed DeLauro a $725,000 judgment debt. Porto filed Chapter 7 seeking to discharge the judgment debt. DeLauro filed complaint containing multiple allegations of fraud, asset concealment, false oaths etc. but only sought discharge under 11 U.S.C. §727(a)(5) forbidding discharge based on Debtor's failure "to explain satisfactorily ... any loss of assets .." Bankruptcy court denied relief DeLauro's sought and awarded attorney's fees to Debtor as a sanction for DeLauro's meritless complaint. Debtor filed motion seeking additional sanctions and taxation of costs in district court. Debtor's motion was denied. Bankruptcy court's order with respect to the merits was affirmed in an order dated May 26, 2009. Order affirming bankruptcy court's order awarding attorney's fees as a sanction was not issued until September 15, 2009.
DeLauro filed two notices of appeal on October 15, 2009. Porto filed a cross-appeal on his motion for sanctions and costs.
With respect to the prior rulings on DeLauro's original objection to discharge, Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1) provides a 30 day period from the final order resolving the matter in which to file a notice of appeal. The threshold question is "whether an undecided attorney's fees issue meant that litigation on the merits [was] not ended for final judgment purposes?" The Court held that the Supreme Court decision in Budinich v. Becton Dickenson & Co., 486 U.S. 196 (1988) applied to cases appealed from a district court exercising appellate review of a bankruptcy court’s order under 28U.S.C. §158(a). Budinich stands for position that attorney fee issues are collateral to the merits, and a decision on the merits is immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. §1291. The Court noted that, notwithstanding Budinich, there are instances where attorney’s fees issues are considered substantive and an order is does not become final and appealable until the attorney’s fees issues are resolved. The Court highlighted a key distinction that was crucial to its analysis and holding – attorney’s fees awarded as sanction were separate from the merits of the case (i.e. collateral to the merits) (Budinich would be applicable) vs. attorney’s fees awarded pursuant to a contract or computed as part of a damages award which are substantive (Budinich not applicable). Where attorney’s fees are collateral appeal clock starts upon issuance of order resolving substantive claims. In this case, the attorney's fee issues were collateral to the merits - therefore the appeals clock started on May 26, 2009. DeLauro missed the deadline for filing the notice of appeal by more than 3 months –the Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
With respect to rulings on the award of attorney’s fees as a sanction, the Court noted that the complaint contained numerous factual allegations that supported non-dischargeability, assets concealment, asset transfer fraud and false oaths under multiple sections of the Bankruptcy Code. However, the complaint was never amended to assert additional basis for DeLauro’s objection. The Court noted that a court must make specific findings as to the party’s conduct that warrants sanctions. The bankruptcy court’s findings were inadequate noting that “a conclusory finding of bad faith is not sufficient to withstand appellate review.” The Court cautioned against court engaging in post hoc reasoning - lack of merit does not equate to bad faith. The Court also highlighted an anomaly – the bankruptcy court’s discussion emphasized the particular objections were brought under the wrong section or subsection of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court saw this as evidence of bad lawyering – of pleading errors – and questioned why the lawyer escaped from sanction while his client was not. The Court vacated and remanded to the bankruptcy court to “flesh out its reasons for sanctioning DeLauro or decide that he is not to be sanctioned.
Finally, the district court had denied Porto's motion for additional sanctions and taxatin of costs as the court concluded that DeLauro's appeals were colorable. On further appeal this Court found no abuse of discretion and affirmed the district court's denial.
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!
