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.
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. --------
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.
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.
"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:
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.”
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).
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."