You are here: / Bankruptcy
,

PLAINTIFF JUDICIALLY ESTOPPED FROM IMPOSING A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST ON REAL PROPERTY, PLAINTIFF STATED HE HAD NO INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY IN PRIOR BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff was judicially estopped from imposing a constructive trust on real property because he stated he had no interest in the property in prior bankruptcy proceedings:

Under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, also known as estoppel against inconsistent positions, a party may not take a position in a legal proceeding that is contrary to a position he or she took in a prior proceeding, simply because his or her interests have changed … . The doctrine applies only where the party secured a judgment in his or her favor in the prior proceeding … . This doctrine “rests upon the principle that a litigant should not be permitted . . . to lead a court to find a fact one way and then contend in another judicial proceeding that the same fact should be found otherwise'” … . “The doctrine is invoked to estop parties from adopting such contrary positions because the judicial system cannot tolerate this playing fast and loose with the courts”… .

Here, the plaintiff’s contention that he had an interest in the … property based on promises that [defendant]  made to the plaintiff … is contrary to his representation to the United States Bankruptcy Court … that he had no interest in real property. Based upon the plaintiff’s representations to the Bankruptcy Court, his debts were discharged. Therefore, we agree with the Supreme Court that this action is barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel … . Bihn v Connelly, 2018 NY Slip Op 03956, Second Dept 6-6-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL, PLAINTIFF JUDICIALLY ESTOPPED FROM IMPOSING A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST ON REAL PROPERTY, PLAINTIFF STATED HE HAD NO INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY IN PRIOR BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT))/JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL (PLAINTIFF JUDICIALLY ESTOPPED FROM IMPOSING A CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST ON REAL PROPERTY, PLAINTIFF STATED HE HAD NO INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY IN PRIOR BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS (SECOND DEPT))

,

FAILURE TO LIST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT IN A BANKRUPTCY SCHEDULE OF ASSETS PRECLUDED SUIT UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL, MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER TO INCLUDE JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL DEFENSE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendant’s (Hurst’s) motion to amend her answer and her motion to dismiss on judicial estoppel grounds were properly granted. Plaintiff had failed to list a cause of action against defendant in her bankruptcy proceeding. Judicial estoppel therefore precluded plaintiff’s action against defendant:

In the absence of prejudice or surprise to the opposing party, leave to amend a pleading should be freely granted unless the proposed amendment is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit (see CPLR 3025[b]…). Lateness alone is not a barrier to the amendment … .” It must be lateness coupled with significant prejudice to the other side, the very elements of the laches doctrine'”… . The determination to permit or deny amendment is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court … .

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, Hurst’s proposed judicial estoppel defense based on its failure to schedule its current claims against her in its third bankruptcy proceeding was not palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit. The doctrine of judicial estoppel precludes a party from taking a position in one legal proceeding which is contrary to that which it took in a prior proceeding, simply because its interests have changed … . “The twin purposes of the doctrine are to protect the integrity of the judicial process and to protect judicial integrity by avoiding the risk of inconsistent results in two proceedings'”… . “[T]he integrity of the bankruptcy system depends on full and honest disclosure by debtors of all of their assets”… . By failing to list causes of action on bankruptcy schedules of assets, the debtor represents that it has no such claims … . Thus, the doctrine of judicial estoppel may bar a party from pursuing claims which were not listed in a previous bankruptcy proceeding … . Moran Enters., Inc. v Hurst, 2018 NY Slip Op 02321, Second Dept 4-4-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (AMEND ANSWER, JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL, FAILURE TO LIST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT IN A BANKRUPTCY SCHEDULE OF ASSETS PRECLUDED SUIT UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL, MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER TO INCLUDE JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL DEFENSE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/ANSWER, AMEND (FAILURE TO LIST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT IN A BANKRUPTCY SCHEDULE OF ASSETS PRECLUDED SUIT UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL, MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER TO INCLUDE JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL DEFENSE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL (BANKRUPTCY, FAILURE TO LIST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT IN A BANKRUPTCY SCHEDULE OF ASSETS PRECLUDED SUIT UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL, MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER TO INCLUDE JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL DEFENSE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/BANKRUPTCY (SCHEDULE OF ASSETS, JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL, FAILURE TO LIST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT IN A BANKRUPTCY SCHEDULE OF ASSETS PRECLUDED SUIT UNDER DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL, MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER TO INCLUDE JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL DEFENSE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/SCHEDULE OF ASSETS (BANKRUPTCY, JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL (FAILURE TO LIST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT IN A BANKRUPTCY SCHEDULE OF ASSETS PRECLUDED SUIT UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL, MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER TO INCLUDE JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL DEFENSE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 3025 (AMEND ANSWER, JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL, FAILURE TO LIST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANT IN A BANKRUPTCY SCHEDULE OF ASSETS PRECLUDED SUIT UNDER THE DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL, MOTION TO AMEND ANSWER TO INCLUDE JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL DEFENSE PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT))

, , ,

PLAINTIFF’S TWICE FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR OVER FOUR YEARS, FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined plaintiff’s twice filing for bankruptcy tolled the statute of limitations for the foreclosure action, making the foreclosure action timely. Therefore, the bank’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law (RPAPL) 1501 action to cancel and discharge the mortgage was properly granted:

Section 362 of the 1978 Bankruptcy Code (11 USC) provides that the filing of a petition in bankruptcy “operates as a stay, applicable to all entities, of . . . the commencement or continuation . . . of a judicial, administrative, or other action or proceeding against the debtor that was or could have been commenced before the commencement of the case under this title” … . The filing of a petition for protection under the Bankruptcy Code imposes “an automatic stay of any mortgage foreclosure actions” … . CPLR 204(a) provides that “[w]here the commencement of an action has been stayed . . . by statutory prohibition, the duration of the stay is not a part of the time within which the action must be commenced.” Pursuant to CPLR 204(a), the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay tolls the limitations period for foreclosure actions … .

Here, in support of its motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), U.S. Bank submitted copies of the plaintiff’s petitions filed in the Bankruptcy Court, together with copies of the orders dismissing the first bankruptcy proceeding and releasing the subject property from the bankruptcy estate in the second bankruptcy proceeding, thereby establishing that, pursuant to CPLR 204(a), the statute of limitations had been tolled for over 4½ years. Lubonty v U.S. Bank N.A., 2018 NY Slip Op 02153, Second Dept 3-28-18

FORECLOSURE (PLAINTIFF’S TWICE FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR OVER FOUR YEARS, FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIMELY (SECOND DEPT))/BANKRUPTCY (FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF’S TWICE FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR OVER FOUR YEARS, FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIMELY (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, FORECLOSURE, PLAINTIFF’S TWICE FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR OVER FOUR YEARS, FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIMELY (SECOND DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (FORECLOSURE, BANKRUPTCY, PLAINTIFF’S TWICE FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR OVER FOUR YEARS, FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIMELY (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 204 (FORECLOSURE, BANKRUPTCY, PLAINTIFF’S TWICE FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR OVER FOUR YEARS, FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIMELY (SECOND DEPT))/REAL PROPERTY ACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS LAW (RPAPL) (FORECLOSURE, RPAPL 1501 ACTION TO CANCEL AND DISCHARGE MORTGAGE, PLAINTIFF’S TWICE FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR OVER FOUR YEARS, FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIMELY (SECOND DEPT))

, ,

ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TOLLED WHEN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS WERE ACTIVE, IT WAS NOT TOLLED WHEN A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PROHIBITING SALE OF THE PROPERTY WAS IN EFFECT, FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the statute of limitations for bringing a foreclosure action, although tolled when bankruptcy proceedings were active, was not tolled when a temporary restraining order prohibiting the sale of the property was in effect. Therefore the foreclosure action was time-barred:

Under CPLR 204(a), “[w]here the commencement of an action has been stayed by a court or by statutory prohibition, the duration of the stay is not a part of the time within which the action must be commenced” … . The bankruptcy stay of 11 USC § 362(c) operates under CPLR 204(a) to stay the commencement, or continuation, of a foreclosure action … . Thus, the periods during which bankruptcy stays were in effect were not part of the time counted in the calculation of the running of the statute of limitations … . Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, however, the time during which the temporary restraining order was in effect when the [borrowers] moved to dismiss the first foreclosure action did not toll the running of the statute of limitations. That order prevented the plaintiff from selling the property at auction, but only in the context of the first foreclosure action. The temporary restraining order did not prevent the plaintiff from discontinuing the first foreclosure action and commencing a new action… . Thus, the plaintiff was not entitled under CPLR 204(a) to have the time during which the temporary restraining order was in effect excluded from the statute of limitations, and the total time elapsed from the acceleration of the mortgage debt until the second foreclosure action was commenced exceeded six years, even when the periods attributable to the bankruptcy stays are excluded. U.S. Bank N.A. v Joseph, 2018 NY Slip Op 02155, Second Dept 3-28-18

FORECLOSURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TOLLED WHEN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS WERE ACTIVE, IT WAS NOT TOLLED WHEN A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PROHIBITING SALE OF THE PROPERTY WAS IN EFFECT, FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/BANKRUPTCY (FORECLOSURE, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TOLLED WHEN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS WERE ACTIVE, IT WAS NOT TOLLED WHEN A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PROHIBITING SALE OF THE PROPERTY WAS IN EFFECT, FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, FORECLOSURE, ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TOLLED WHEN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS WERE ACTIVE, IT WAS NOT TOLLED WHEN A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PROHIBITING SALE OF THE PROPERTY WAS IN EFFECT, FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/CPLR 204 (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, FORECLOSURE, ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TOLLED WHEN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS WERE ACTIVE, IT WAS NOT TOLLED WHEN A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PROHIBITING SALE OF THE PROPERTY WAS IN EFFECT, FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (FORECLOSURE, ALTHOUGH THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS TOLLED WHEN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS WERE ACTIVE, IT WAS NOT TOLLED WHEN A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER PROHIBITING SALE OF THE PROPERTY WAS IN EFFECT, FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT))

,

CLAIM AGAINST THE BANKRUPT’S INSURER IS NOT BARRED BY THE INSURED’S DISCHARGE IN BANKRUPTCY (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined that a claim against the bankrupt’s (Daffy’s) insurer is not barred by the insured’s (Daffy’s) discharge in bankruptcy:

​

The court correctly determined that this third-party action against Daffy’s Inc. is not barred by the “Stipulated Order” in Daffy’s bankruptcy proceeding, in which third-party plaintiff [property owner] , waived and released any claims or causes of action relating to or arising under its lease with Daffy’s, and the lease was “rejected and terminated.” The motion papers make it clear that [the property owner] seeks to establish Daffy’s liability in the underlying personal injury action for the sole purpose of recovering under Daffy’s insurance policy in effect at the time of the accident. Because the policy would not inure to Daffy’s pecuniary benefit, it was not part of the bankruptcy estate, and thus it is not covered by the Stipulated Order … . Moreover, this Court has recognized that “a claim asserted for the sole purpose of establishing the liability of a party’s insurer is not barred by that party’s discharge in bankruptcy” … . Calleja v AI 229 W. 42nd St. Prop. Owner, LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 00338, First Dept 1-18-18

INSURANCE LAW (CLAIM AGAINST THE BANKRUPT’S INSURER IS NOT BARRED BY THE INSURED’S DISCHARGE IN BANKRUPTCY (FIRST DEPT))/BANKRUPTCY (INSURANCE LAW, CLAIM AGAINST THE BANKRUPT’S INSURER IS NOT BARRED BY THE INSURED’S DISCHARGE IN BANKRUPTCY (FIRST DEPT))

,

CONFIRMED BANKRUPTCY PLAN DID NOT HAVE A RES JUDICATA EFFECT ON AN ACTION ON A MORTGAGE WHICH WAS PENDING WHEN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS WERE COMMENCED.

The Second Department determined the confirmation of a bankruptcy plan did not have a res judicata effect upon an action by plaintiff bank to require the recording of a mortgage that was pending when defendants’ bankruptcy proceedings were commenced:

​

The plaintiff commenced this action in June 2013, inter alia, to direct the recording of a mortgage allegedly executed in September 2006 to encumber real property owned by the defendants … (the McKennas), and for a judgment declaring that that mortgage is superior in priority over other recorded mortgages on the property. On or about September 24, 2013, the McKennas filed a petition for Chapter 13 bankruptcy … , … automatically stay[ing] this action pursuant to 11 USC § 362(a). By order dated August 25, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court reclassified the plaintiff’s claim, for the purposes of that court, from “secured” to “unsecured,” and terminated the automatic stay for cause as to the plaintiff so that the plaintiff could continue the instant action through the entry of judgment. * * *

While an order confirming a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan may constitute a final judgment on the merits … , the res judicata effect of a confirmed plan does not apply when a state court action concerning the validity of a lien remains unresolved at the time the bankruptcy proceedings were commenced … . Here, the instant action was pending when the McKennas filed their bankruptcy petition, and, therefore, the Supreme Court properly concluded that the subsequent confirmation of the amended Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan had no res judicata effect on the instant action. U.S. Bank N.A. v McKenna, 2017 NY Slip Op 03215, 2nd Dept 4-26-17

 

CIVIL PROCEDURE (RES JUDICATA, BANKRUPTCY PLAN, CONFIRMED BANKRUPTCY PLAN DID NOT HAVE A RES JUDICATA EFFECT ON AN ACTION ON A MORTGAGE WHICH WAS PENDING WHEN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS WERE COMMENCED)/BANKRUPTCY PLAN (RES JUDICATA, CONFIRMED BANKRUPTCY PLAN DID NOT HAVE A RES JUDICATA EFFECT ON AN ACTION ON A MORTGAGE WHICH WAS PENDING WHEN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS WERE COMMENCED)/RES JUDICATA (BANKRUPTCY PLAN, CONFIRMED BANKRUPTCY PLAN DID NOT HAVE A RES JUDICATA EFFECT ON AN ACTION ON A MORTGAGE WHICH WAS PENDING WHEN THE BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS WERE COMMENCED)

,

AFTER TERMINATION OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS PLAINTIFF CANNOT SUE ON INVOICES NOT INCLUDED IN THE SCHEDULE OF ASSETS.

The Third Department determined plaintiff could not sue on invoices submitted for payment (which was refused) while plaintiff was in bankruptcy proceedings. Causes of action not listed in the bankruptcy proceedings cannot be sued upon after termination of the bankruptcy proceedings:

​

“Upon the filing of a voluntary bankruptcy petition, all property which a debtor owns, including a cause of action, vests in the bankruptcy estate” … . As such, a debtor’s failure to list a legal claim as an asset in its bankruptcy proceeding precludes the debtor from pursuing such claim on its own behalf inasmuch as the claim remains the property of the bankruptcy estate … . “The only property that may revest in the debtor in its individual capacity at the conclusion of the proceeding is property that was dealt with in the bankruptcy or abandoned” … . …

… [T]he claims asserted by plaintiff … accrued prior to the termination of the bankruptcy proceeding … . [T]he omission of these claims from the … schedule of assets in the bankruptcy proceeding precludes plaintiff from pursuing them on its own behalf because they were not “dealt with” in such proceeding … . Lightning Capital Holdings LLC v Erie Painting & Maintenance, Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 02716, 3rd Dept 4-6-17

 

CONTRACT LAW (AFTER TERMINATION OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS PLAINTIFF CANNOT SUE ON INVOICES NOT INCLUDED IN THE SCHEDULE OF ASSETS)/BANKRUPTCY (AFTER TERMINATION OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS PLAINTIFF CANNOT SUE ON INVOICES NOT INCLUDED IN THE SCHEDULE OF ASSETS)

, ,

PLAINTIFFS HAD STANDING TO SUE FOR LEGAL MALPRACTICE STEMMING FROM A TRIAL BROUGHT IN THE NAME OF PLAINTIFFS’ CHAPTER 13 BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a dissent, determined the plaintiffs, who were discharged in Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings, could sue for legal malpractice stemming from a personal injury trial brought in the name of the bankruptcy trustee. The plaintiffs alleged the recovery in the personal injury trial was diminished because the jury became aware an injury report had been altered by the defedant lawyers and a doctor:

… [W]e find that the plaintiffs, as Chapter 13 debtors, had standing to maintain this action. We note that standing, of course, concerns the absence or presence of a sufficiently cognizable stake in the outcome of the litigation … .

In contrast to Chapter 7 proceedings, the object of a Chapter 13 proceeding is the rehabilitation of the debtor under a plan that adjusts debts owed to creditors by the debtor’s regular periodic payments derived principally from income. Thus, in a Chapter 13 proceeding, a debtor generally retains his property, if he so proposes, and seeks court confirmation of a plan to repay his debts over a three- to five-year period … . Payments under a Chapter 13 plan are usually made from a debtor’s “future earnings or other future income” … . “Accordingly, the Chapter 13 estate from which creditors may be paid includes both the debtor’s property at the time of his bankruptcy petition, and any wages and property acquired after filing” … . Assets acquired after a Chapter 13 plan is confirmed by the court are not included as property of the estate, unless they are necessary to maintain the plan … , or the trustee seeks a modification of the plan to remedy a substantial change in the debtor’s income or expenses that was not anticipated at the time of the confirmation hearing … . Unlike Chapter 7 proceedings, there is no separation of the estate property from the debtor under a Chapter 13 proceeding, except to the extent that the plan, as confirmed by order of the court, places control over an asset in the hands of the trustee … . This is the basis for the conclusion that, while Chapters 7 and 11 debtors lose capacity to maintain civil suits, Chapter 13 debtors do not … . Thus, a Chapter 13 debtor keeps all, or at the very least some, of the income and property he or she acquires during the administration of the repayment plan. Accordingly, in this action, it was never the bankruptcy estate, or its creditors, that was damaged by a decrease in the amount awarded in the underlying personal injury action due to the alleged conduct of the defendants. Only the plaintiffs had an interest in the recovery of damages in the personal injury action … . Moreover, it was the plaintiffs and the defendants who were engaged in a face-to-face relationship in the underlying personal injury action and to the extent the defendants allegedly breached a duty in that action the foreseeable harm was to the plaintiffs, not the trustee or the bankruptcy estate. Thus, under the circumstances presented here, the relationship of the plaintiffs to the personal injury action is unique and demands an exception to the general rule regarding privity … . Nicke v Schwartzapfel Partners, P.C., 2017 NY Slip Op 02437. 2nd Dept 3-29-17

 

APPELLANT COULD NOT PURSUE COUNTERCLAIMS AND CROSS-CLAIMS WHICH WERE NOT LISTED AS ASSETS IN APPELLANT’S BANKRUPTCY PETITION; THE CAUSES OF ACTION REMAIN VESTED IN THE BANKRUPTCY ESTATE.

The Third Department determined appellant was precluded from raising counterclaims and cross-claims in a matter which was stayed when appellant filed for bankruptcy. The causes of action were not listed as assets and therefore became the property of the bankruptcy estate:

 

It is fundamental that, “[u]pon the filing of a voluntary bankruptcy petition, all property which a debtor owns . . ., including a cause of action, vests in the bankruptcy estate” … . Such a cause of action “can only revert to the debtor to be pursued in his or her individual capacity if the claim is 'dealt with' in the bankruptcy, which necessitates it being listed as an asset [in the schedule of assets] and either abandoned by the bankruptcy trustee or administered by the bankruptcy court for the benefit of the creditors” … . Accordingly, “a debtor's failure to list a legal claim as an asset in his or her bankruptcy proceeding causes the claim to remain the property of the bankruptcy estate and precludes the debtor from pursuing the claim on his or her own behalf” … . Central Natl. Bank, Canajoharie v Scotty's Auto Sales, Inc., 2016 NY Slip Op 02876, 3rd Dept 4-14-16


, ,

ACKNOWLEDGING DEBT IN BANKRUPTCY PLAN RENEWED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WHICH STARTED TO RUN UPON GRANT OF DISCHARGE IN BANKRUPTCY.

The Second Department determined the statute of limitations re: a default on a note secured by a mortgage was renewed when defendant (Raudkivi) acknowledged the debt in his bankruptcy plan. The statute therefore began to run when defendant was granted a discharge in bankruptcy, which occurred less than six years before suit was brought:

Raudkivi’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan, in which he acknowledged the mortgage debt and promised to repay it, renewed the limitations period (see General Obligations Law § 17-105[1]…). The automatic bankruptcy stay, which was in effect when Raudkivi executed his Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan, tolled the renewed limitations period (see CPLR 204[a]…), so the renewed limitations period did not begin to run until Raudkivi was granted his discharge in bankruptcy in October of 2006 (see 11 USC § 362[c][2][C]). Since this action was commenced less than six years later, in July of 2012, this action is not time-barred. PSP-NC, LLC v Raudkivi, 2016 NY Slip Op 02632, 2nd Dept 4-6-16

DEBTOR-CREDITOR (ACKNOWLEDGING DEBT IN BANKRUPTCY PLAN RENEWED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WHICH STARTED TO RUN UPON GRANT OF DISCHARGE IN BANKRUPTCY)/BANKRUPTCY (ACKNOWLEDGING DEBT IN BANKRUPTCY PLAN RENEWED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WHICH STARTED TO RUN UPON GRANT OF DISCHARGE IN BANKRUPTCY)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (ACKNOWLEDGING DEBT IN BANKRUPTCY PLAN RENEWED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WHICH STARTED TO RUN UPON GRANT OF DISCHARGE IN BANKRUPTCY)

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy