by

The intersection of appellate litigation and bankruptcy proceedings often creates confusion regarding whether an automatic stay halts ongoing appeals, particularly when attorney fee awards are at issue. A recent California decision clarifies that not all appeals involving a debtor are subject to the automatic stay, especially when the debtor initiated the underlying action. If you are involved in litigation and are considering bankruptcy, it is critical to consult a California bankruptcy attorney who can assess your rights.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the plaintiffs initiated a civil action asserting claims for breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing arising from a failed business transaction involving investment advisory services and loan obligations. The plaintiffs contended that the defendants agreed to assume and repay a substantial loan originally made to third parties, while the defendants denied entering into any such agreement.

It is alleged that the matter proceeded to a jury trial, during which the parties presented competing evidence regarding whether a binding agreement existed. The plaintiffs relied on communications and testimony to support their theory of contract formation, while the defendants argued that no enforceable promise was made and that any discussions concerned only internal accounting treatment of the debt. The jury ultimately returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, finding no contractual obligation or actionable misrepresentation. Continue reading

by

Disputes over the scope and finality of a bankruptcy discharge strike at the core of the relief the Bankruptcy Code is designed to provide, particularly when creditors attempt to reopen long-closed cases on the basis of alleged misconduct. A recent decision from a California court addresses whether a creditor may revive a Chapter 13 case to seek revocation of a discharge after the statutory deadline has expired, even when fraud is alleged. If you are facing a dispute involving a bankruptcy discharge or creditor enforcement actions, it is in your best interest to speak with a California bankruptcy attorney who can evaluate your options and protect your rights under the law.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the debtor filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in 2011 and obtained confirmation of a third amended repayment plan in late 2012. The plan required the debtor to complete all payments and satisfy additional administrative obligations before receiving a discharge. Several years later, the trustee reported that plan payments were complete, but the case was closed without a discharge because the debtor had not filed proof of completion of a financial management course and had not submitted a required declaration concerning a loan modification.

It is alleged that more than seven years later, the debtor successfully moved to reopen the case to cure those deficiencies. After submitting the missing certificate and declaration, the debtor filed a certification in support of discharge that initially omitted a required selection regarding domestic support obligations. The debtor later filed an amended certification affirmatively stating that no domestic support obligation applied. Based on the trustee’s amended final report, the court entered a discharge order in April 2024 and closed the case again. Continue reading

by

Disputes over the validity of recorded loan documents and foreclosure authority remain a frequent source of litigation in California real estate cases, particularly when borrowers allege defects in a deed of trust or irregularities following bankruptcy proceedings. A recent California decision illustrates how courts manage complex foreclosure disputes at the summary judgment stage while enforcing strict procedural rules. If you are considering filing for bankruptcy, it is in your best interest to talk to a California bankruptcy attorney as soon as possible.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the plaintiff acquired an interest in residential real property located in Los Angeles County and later became subject to a deed of trust recorded in 2006 in favor of the original lender. The plaintiff asserted that the deed of trust was void because it named a non-existent entity as beneficiary and was unsupported by a valid promissory note. Based on these asserted defects, the plaintiff contended that the lien was fraudulent from its inception.

It is alleged that the deed of trust was subsequently assigned through a series of transactions and ultimately came under the control of the defendant trustee, which serviced the loan through a loan servicing entity. After years of inactivity, the defendant recorded a notice of default in 2021 and initiated nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings. The plaintiff maintained that these actions occurred without lawful authority and in violation of protections arising from a previously confirmed bankruptcy plan. Continue reading

by

Disputes over financial transfers frequently arise in bankruptcy cases, particularly when a trustee seeks to recover funds the debtor allegedly disbursed without authorization. A recent California decision addresses how courts evaluate factual findings, interest awards, and requests for new trials in contested turnover actions. If you have questions about bankruptcy litigation in California, you should consult a knowledgeable California bankruptcy attorney to protect your interests.

Facts and Procedural History

Allegedly, the appellant received a total of $137,000 from the debtor during the period preceding the bankruptcy filing. It is alleged that the appellant characterized these funds as partial repayment for more than $400,000 he had previously advanced to the debtor. Reportedly, the trustee disputed this characterization, asserting that the appellant never loaned funds to the debtor and that the transfers instead constituted loans the appellant was obligated to repay.

It is reported that the trustee initiated a turnover action seeking the return of the $137,000. Allegedly, the bankruptcy court evaluated the parties’ testimony and documentary evidence, including tax filings, checks prepared by the appellant, and the absence of corroborating documentation for the alleged earlier loans. Reportedly, the bankruptcy court found the trustee’s testimony credible, found the appellant not credible, and concluded that the debtor had loaned the appellant the $137,000. The court entered judgment for the trustee and awarded prejudgment interest beginning in late 2016. Continue reading

by

When a debtor sues a municipality for property damage, overlapping legal deadlines can complicate even the strongest claims. A recent California decision in a case involving a fallen tree limb and extensive home damage illustrates how strictly courts enforce statutes of limitation even when bankruptcy and emergency tolling rules come into play. If you have questions with regard to how filing for bankruptcy may impact your rights,  it is essential to consult a knowledgeable Sacramento bankruptcy attorney immediately.

Facts of the Case and Procedural History

It is reported that the plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant city after a tree branch allegedly owned by the municipality fell on her home in January 2018, rendering the property uninhabitable and causing extensive damage. Allegedly, within days of the incident, the plaintiff filed a claim for damages under California’s Government Claims Act. The city acknowledged receipt and informed her that if the claim were denied, she would have six months from the denial date to initiate litigation.

Continue reading

by

When a defendant in a civil lawsuit files for bankruptcy, the automatic stay can halt proceedings against that party. However, the question of whether litigation continues against other defendants often remains contested. A recent decision issued in California highlights how bankruptcy stays intersect with multi-party civil rights litigation, and how courts address attempts by non-bankrupt defendants to delay proceedings through discretionary stays. If you are navigating litigation that overlaps with bankruptcy, consulting with a skilled California bankruptcy attorney is essential to protect your rights.

Facts of the Case and Procedural History

It is reported that the plaintiffs filed civil rights claims against multiple defendants, including municipalities, law enforcement officers, and a contracted medical provider. Allegedly, during the pendency of the action, certain defendants became subject to an automatic stay imposed by the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. The stay prevented further litigation against those defendants while their bankruptcy proceeded.

Allegedly, the district court instructed the remaining defendants not subject to the bankruptcy stay to renew any pending summary judgment motions, request additional briefing, or move for a discretionary stay if they believed litigation should be paused. Reportedly, the defendant City of Farmersville renewed its summary judgment motion, while the defendant County of Tulare filed a motion it styled as “administrative relief,” seeking to place the case on hold until all defendants could proceed together. Plaintiffs opposed the request, noting that the bankruptcy court had already clarified the scope of the automatic stay, making further delay unnecessary. Continue reading

by

Bankruptcy cases often involve overlapping legal proceedings in state court and federal bankruptcy court, and debtors must take care that their actions do not run afoul of the confirmed Chapter 13 plan. A recent decision by a California court highlights that even when post-confirmation developments raise questions about debtor conduct, a bankruptcy court retains discretion to determine whether those actions warrant dismissal. If you are considering seeking debt relief and you have questions about your rights before, during, and after bankruptcy proceedings, you should speak with a Sacramento bankruptcy attorney as soon as possible.

Factual and Procedural Background

It is reported that the debtor filed a Chapter 13 petition in October 2022 while her residence remained encumbered by a deed of trust in favor of a secured lender. The debtor had previously lived in the property with her then-husband, who was the son of the creditor seeking dismissal. It is alleged that the creditor, who continued residing at the property after the debtor’s divorce, had acquired a judicial lien on the property and was listed in the bankruptcy schedules as holding a secured claim of approximately $185,000. The debtor proposed an initial plan that included efforts to cure mortgage arrears and strip judicial liens, including the creditor’s, as impairing the homestead exemption.

Continue reading

by

Bankruptcy law permits debtors to protect certain property from liquidation through state and federal exemptions. However, when exemptions are improperly claimed or unsupported by law, trustees may object, and courts must determine the legitimacy of those claims. A recent decision from a California court demonstrates how a debtor’s exemptions may be denied when the claimed property is no longer legally owned at the time of the bankruptcy filing and when the debtor fails to substantiate the exemption under applicable law. If you are involved in a bankruptcy proceeding in California, it is essential to consult with a qualified attorney before taking action.

Factual Setting and Procedural Background

It is reported that the debtor filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in December 2021, several months after a state court judgment had been entered against her. The judgment required her to transfer her interest in a residential property to her daughter. It is alleged that pursuant to this judgment, a quitclaim deed transferring the property was recorded on December 10, 2021, five days before the bankruptcy petition was filed.

It is further reported that despite this transfer, the debtor claimed a homestead exemption in the property. The Chapter 7 trustee objected, asserting that the debtor no longer owned the property at the time of the petition and therefore could not claim it as exempt. The bankruptcy court agreed, sustaining the objection and concluding that because the debtor lacked a legal or equitable interest in the property as of the petition date, it never became part of the estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1). Continue reading

by

Bankruptcy proceedings often involve not just questions of debt relief but also serious disputes over property rights, trust ownership, and trustee powers. When a debtor attempts to shield property by placing it in trust or disputes the trustee’s control over valuable real estate, the court must step in to determine what belongs to the estate and what does not. A recent California bankruptcy ruling illustrates how these conflicts are resolved in Chapter 11 and illustrates how the law of the case doctrine can prevent re-litigation of issues already decided. If you are considering bankruptcy or are already involved in proceedings where ownership of trust or jointly held property is contested, it is critical to speak with a California bankruptcy attorney as soon as possible.

Case Setting

It is reported that the debtor filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California and disclosed an interest in real property located on June Street in Beverly Hills, California. The debtor listed the property with an estimated value of $4.9 million and noted only a $15,000 tax lien as an encumbrance. The filing also disclosed roughly $32 million in liabilities.

It is alleged that although the debtor originally included the June Street property as part of his bankruptcy estate, he and other affiliated parties, including his wife and several family trusts—later claimed that the property was not his and was instead held by various trusts. In response, the Chapter 11 trustee filed a quiet title action seeking a declaration that the property belonged to the estate. Continue reading

by

California bankruptcy law offers certain protections to debtors through the homestead exemption, which allows individuals to shield a portion of their home equity from creditors. However, these protections are not absolute. A recent California bankruptcy decision highlights the limitations of the exemption when a debtor fails to meet the required residency and procedural requirements. If you need assistance with a bankruptcy issue, it is in your best interest to seek the counsel of a Sacramento bankruptcy attorney as soon as possible.

Procedural History and Factual Background

It is reported that the debtor filed a Chapter 7 petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California, seeking to exempt a residential property located in Shingle Springs under California’s homestead exemption. The property was held in the name of a family trust in which the debtor held an interest. The Chapter 7 trustee objected to the claimed exemption, arguing that the debtor had not resided at the property during the relevant period and that the trust ownership did not qualify for exemption under applicable law.

It is further reported that the bankruptcy court held an evidentiary hearing, during which the debtor testified regarding her living arrangements and her intent to reside at the Shingle Springs property. The court reviewed testimony, documents, and the procedural history, including the timing of the debtor’s relocation to the property and the date of her bankruptcy filing. Following the hearing, the bankruptcy court denied the exemption on the grounds that the debtor had not established that the property was her principal residence as of the petition date. Continue reading

Contact Information
428 J Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 361-6028



We are a Debt Relief Agency under the United States Bankruptcy Code. We help people file for bankruptcy relief under the Bankruptcy Code.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2026, Matthew D. Roy
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design