Cox v. Specialty Vehicle Solutions, LLC
- Summarized by J. Debbeler , Bricker Graydon LLP
- 8 years 2 months ago
- Case Type:
- Business
- Case Status:
- Affirmed in part and Reversed in part
- Citation:
- Sixth Circuit Case Nos. 16-5289/5290 (File Name: 17a0629n.06) (6th Circuit, Nov 15,2017) Not Published
- Tag(s):
-
- Ruling:
- Sixth Circuit holds that an action taken in violation of an automatic stay may be validated in either of two ways: (i) by the bankruptcy court annulling the stay which permits the order to operate retroactively or (ii) if an exception to the operation of the stay applies if limited equitable circumstances exist- specifically if the debtor unreasonably withholds notice of the stay and the creditor would be prejudiced of if the debtor is attempting to use the stay unfairly as a shield to avoid an unfavorable result. The district court's decision is vacated in part and affirmed in part.
- Procedural context:
- Debtor filed Chapter 11 and did not list creditor. Creditor filed injury claim in state court. Debtor filed notice of stay and creditor sought relief from stay in bankruptcy court. Bankruptcy court entered an order allowing state court case to proceed. Debtor removed case to district court and moved to dismiss on grounds case was filed in violation of stay and outside limitations period. Creditor filed new action in district court and debtor moved to dismiss case on limitations grounds. District court dismissed both cases finding the first case did not meet the equitable exception and the second case was filed outside the limitations period as extended by Section 108. Sixth Circuit finds district court did not apply prior precedent and bankruptcy order was ambiguous. The second suit was filed too late as creditor had notice of relief from stay order more than 30 days before refiling otherwise limitations barred suit. Dissent would have dismissed first case and construed bankruptcy order.
- Facts:
- Police officer assigned to IRS task force drove modified van sold to IRS by debtor. Officer claimed toxic chemicals were released by van and harmed him. Debtor (pre-petiion) reviewed claim and denied it when inspection came back clean.
Officer filed suit in state court. Debtor did not list officer as creditor as it believe his claim to have been withdrawn. Suit was filed 5 days before limitations period expired. Second suit was filed after debtor moved to dismiss first suit after removal to district court. Court order modifying stay did not address the bankruptcy court's equitable power to annul the stay so there was a question as to whether the intent of the order was for it to apply retroactively. Sixth Circuit remanded to district court to make that determination.
- Judge(s):
- Guy, Clay and White, Circuit Judges (opinion by White with dissent by Clay)
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!
