Gary F. Abel v. Denise D. Queen

United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit · July 19, 2019 · No. No. 18-6023

Summary

The Eighth Circuit BAP affirmed summary judgment for debtors on dischargeability under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4), holding that the appellants abandoned their claim that a state court default judgment had collateral estoppel effect by withdrawing their motion for partial summary judgment and submitting the matter on an agreed record without renewing the preclusion argument. Because the issue was not preserved, the bankruptcy court did not err in refusing to give preclusive effect to the default judgment, and the appellate court did not reach the underlying merits of fiduciary duty or fraud. Key topics: bankruptcy dischargeability, collateral estoppel from default judgments, issue abandonment, and the requirements of § 523(a)(4).

Court
United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit
Writing for the Court
NAIL; SALADINO; SANBERG
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
July 19, 2019
Docket number
No. 18-6023
Procedural posture
Appeal from the bankruptcy court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the Queens on Abel and Metro's complaint to determine dischargeability.
Standard of review
de novo for legal determinations, clear error for factual findings
Precedential value
Published
Parties
Gary Francis Abel and Metro Acoustics, LLC v. Denise D. Queen and Michael G. Queen
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

bankruptcydischargesummary judgmentwaiverappellate procedure

Practice areas

BankruptcyAppellate Practice

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Abel and Metro abandoned their claim that the state court default judgment should be given preclusive effect, thereby making the issue not before the bankruptcy court.

Holdings

  1. By withdrawing their motion for partial summary judgment and submitting the case on an agreed record without renewing the claim, Abel and Metro abandoned their claim that the state court default judgment should be given preclusive effect; therefore the bankruptcy court did not err in not considering it.

Key quotations

The record demonstrates Abel and Metro abandoned their claim that the state court default judgment should be given preclusive effect, long before the bankruptcy court entered its order for summary judgment in favor of the Queens. (at 5)
By withdrawing their motion for partial summary judgment and submitting the matter to the bankruptcy court on an agreed record–without renewing their claim that the state court default judgment should be given preclusive effect–Abel and Metro abandoned that claim. (at 6)

Factual background

Abel and Denise Queen formed Metro Acoustics, LLC, which installed acoustic ceiling tiles. Michael Queen was an employee. The business failed. Abel and Metro sued the Queens in state court for fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and conversion. After discovery violations, the state court struck pleadings, entered default judgment on all counts, and scheduled a damages hearing. Before that hearing, the Queens filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

Procedural history

Abel and Metro filed suit in Missouri state court against the Queens, which led to a default judgment after discovery sanctions. Before the damages hearing, the Queens filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Abel and Metro filed an adversary complaint to determine dischargeability under § 523(a)(2), (4), (6). They moved for partial summary judgment on issue preclusion, but the motion was denied/withdrawn. Then the parties agreed to submit on summary judgment on dischargeability under § 523(a)(4) only, based on stipulated facts and exhibits. The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment for the Queens. Abel and Metro appealed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…