Williams v. King (In re King)

8 Citing cases

  1. Gray v. Nussbeck (In re Gray)

    573 B.R. 868 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2017)   Cited 7 times

    Doc. 36, Petition ¶ 8, Nussbeck v. Gray, Case no. 1316–CV27930 (Circuit Court of Jackson Cty., MO, Nov. 1, 2013).See In re King, 744 F.3d 565, 567 (8th Cir. 2014) ("An agreement seeking to reaffirm pre-discharge debt and incorporate it into a new post-discharge debt is only enforceable if numerous requirements are met, including receipt of a bankruptcy court's express approval of the agreement.") (citing 11 U.S.C. § 524(c) ). Case no. 12–22251, Doc. 46.

  2. Raynor v. Walker (In re Raynor)

    No. 19-2845 (8th Cir. May. 22, 2020)

    Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties' arguments on appeal, we find no basis for reversal. See Williams v. King (In re King), 744 F.3d 565, 569 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review); Lane v. Peterson, 899 F.2d 737, 742 (8th Cir. 1990) (res judicata bars relitigation of claim if prior judgment was rendered by court of competent jurisdiction, prior judgment was final judgment on merits, and same cause of action and same parties or their privies were involved in both cases). The Honorable Thomas L. Saladino, Chief Judge, United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nebraska. --------

  3. First State Bank of Roscoe v. Stabler

    914 F.3d 1129 (8th Cir. 2019)   Cited 17 times
    Reiterating Apex Oil 's holding that state courts have concurrent jurisdiction to determine whether the plan and injunction apply to claims, but holding that Apex did not purport to disempower the bankruptcy court to enforce its own orders

    In the absence of errors at law or clearly erroneous factual determinations, we review a sanctions award, including an award of attorney fees, for an abuse of discretion. See Williams v. King (In re King), 744 F.3d 565, 570 (8th Cir. 2014) ("The bankruptcy court was perfectly within its discretion to impose the sanction."). Appellants do not challenge the actual amounts of the sanction or fee award.

  4. Behrens v. United States (In re Behrens)

    577 F. App'x 633 (8th Cir. 2014)

    Bryan Behrens appeals the decision of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, affirming the bankruptcy court's order dismissing his complaint challenging the restitution order imposed as part of his criminal sentence. Upon careful review, see In re King, 744 F.3d 565, 569 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review), we conclude that Behrens improperly sought to use an adversary bankruptcy proceeding to collaterally attack a final criminal judgment. Accordingly, we affirm.

  5. Am. First Fed., Inc. v. Theodore

    584 B.R. 627 (D. Vt. 2018)   Cited 8 times

    "In the bankruptcy context, a post-petition contract renewing pre-petition debt is a reaffirmation agreement and is only effective with court approval in strict compliance with 11 U.S.C. § 524." In re King , 480 B.R. 321, 328 (8th Cir. BAP 2012), aff'd , 744 F.3d 565 (8th Cir. 2014). Under 11 U.S.C. § 524(c), "[a]n agreement between a holder of a claim and the debtor[ ] ... is enforceable only" if:

  6. In re Sears

    536 B.R. 286 (D. Neb. 2015)   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Issues committed to the bankruptcy court's discretion are reviewed for an abuse of that discretion. In re King, 744 F.3d 565, 569 (8th Cir.2014). “The bankruptcy court abuses its discretion when it fails to apply the proper legal standard or bases its order on findings of fact that are clearly erroneous.”

  7. In re Beauvais

    4:14-CV-3143 (D. Neb. Mar. 31, 2015)

    A bankruptcy court's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo on appeal, its findings of fact are reviewed for clear error, and issues committed to the bankruptcy court's discretion are reviewed for an abuse of that discretion. In re King, 744 F.3d 565, 569 (8th Cir. 2014). The primary issue on appeal is a question of law: whether Nebraska's state law tools-of-the-trade exemption controls the availability of lien avoidance under § 522(f).

  8. In re Theodore

    Case # 10-10233 (Bankr. D. Vt. Dec. 22, 2016)

    Where "no approval [is] sought or granted[,] any re-incorporation of pre-conversion debt is unenforceable as a matter of law. 11 U.S.C. § 524(c) says as much explicitly." In re King, 480 B.R. 321 at 328, aff'd, 744 F.3d 565 (8th Cir. 2014). This strict requirement exists to protect "one of the primary purposes of the Bankruptcy Code - that the debtor has the opportunity to make a financial fresh start."