Edwards v. Edmondson (In Re Edwards)
446 B.R. 276
| 8th Cir. BAP | 2011Background
- Missouri circuit court ordered Edwards to demolish a pond and restore a stream bed or face a $50 per day penalty.
- Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's judgment in Edwards v. Edmondson (2003).
- State court contempt judgments against Edwards were entered and later amended; extensive post-judgment proceedings followed.
- Edmondson filed proofs of claim in Edwards' Chapter 13 case; initial and amended claims were litigated in bankruptcy court.
- Bankruptcy court reduced the amended claim by post-judgment interest and allowed interest under Missouri law; Edwardses appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Edwardses may expand the appellate record with new documents | Edwards | Edmondson | Rejected; denied enlargement of the record |
| Whether issues not raised in bankruptcy court may be considered on appeal | Edwards | Edmondson | Not considered absent exceptional justification |
| Whether Edmondson is entitled to post-judgment interest during appeal | Edwards | Edmondson | Edmondson entitled to post-judgment interest during pendency of appeals |
| Whether the original judgment was liquidated for purposes of interest | Edwards | Edmondson | Judgment was liquidated; interest allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- Southern Real Estate & Fin. Co. v. City of St. Louis, 115 S.W.2d 513 (Mo. App. 1938) (post-judgment interest excludes delays caused by appellee when affirming a judgment)
- CADCO, Inc. v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., 250 S.W.3d 376 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008) (credit for post-judgment interest when judgment affirmed on appeal; exception to delay rule)
- Investors Title Co. v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 18 S.W.3d 70 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000) (identical predecessor statute interpretation of interest upon judgment)
- In re Lockwood Corp., 223 B.R. 170 (8th Cir. BAP 1998) (appellate record and evidence considerations)
- In re Hervey, 252 B.R. 763 (8th Cir. BAP 2000) (exceptional cases for raising new issues on appeal)
- Kelley v. Crunk, 713 F.2d 426 (8th Cir. 1983) (plain miscarriage of justice exception for new-issue review)
- Krigel v. Sterling Nat'l Bank (In re Ward), 230 B.R. 115 (8th Cir. BAP 1999) (new legal issues may be reviewed when resolution is clear)
- Southern Real Estate & Fin. Co. v. City of St. Louis, 115 S.W.2d 513 (Mo. App. 1938) (see above (listed for context))