9th Circuit - Impositions of Sanctions by Bankruptcy Court - Affirmed - Failure to Transfer Real Property Located in Mexico (Published - 2014)

Contempt sanctions were issued by the bankruptcy court against a defendant for failing to a Mexican Villa to the Plaintiff.  Although the case just came down and I have not adequately reviewed, of interesting point is the reiteration that the Bankruptcy Court can issue contempt proceedings provide that notice is given and a statement of the burden.  Also, the Court examined the ability of the Debtor to actually comply with the order in light of Mexican Law.  Once again, the parties need to always examine who has the burden....



Once an alleged contemnor’s noncompliance with a court order is established, the burden shifts to the alleged contemnor to “produce[] sufficient evidence of [its] inability

comply to raise a question of fact.” United States v. Rylander, 656 F.2d 1313, 1318 (9th Cir. 1981), rev'd on other grounds, 460 U.S. 752 (1983). If the alleged contemnor does

not raise a question of fact through affidavits, and does not seek the opportunity to present its defense through live testimony, a court does not violate that party’s due process rights by holding it in contempt solely based on affidavits. 

See Thomas, Head, 95 F.3d at 1458

In re Jerry Icenhower

A Not So Happy Christmas for a Law Firm Violating the Discharge Injunction ($27,000 worth of coal) - 9th Cir. BAP Published

The bankruptcy court held appellants Rediger Investment Corporation (“Rediger”) and its counsel, the Duringer Law Group, PLC (“Duringer Firm” and, jointly, the “Appellants”) in civil

contempt under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) for violation of the 

automatic stay. As a result, it awarded sanctions against the Appellants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $23,072.09.  The BAP AFFIRMED.

 

Quite frankly, bad facts create bad results....this is a case which should have settled.  It is worth a read to understand the 105 contempt vs. 362.

 

12-27-13 Granados-13-1145.pdf