In re Anthony
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 128981
| D. Neb. | 2012Background
- Anthony purchased a Lincoln, Nebraska residential lot in 2001 subject to a recorded declaration of restrictive covenants that would make lot owners Edenton North Homeowner’s Association members and subject to uniform assessments and liens on the property.
- Anthony borrowed $285,000 (later increased to $310,000) from Cattle National Bank to construct a home; the loan was a business-purpose loan intended to develop and sell for profit.
- Anthony defaulted on the loan and failed to pay property taxes and HOA dues; Cattle National sought foreclosure under the deed of trust and Nebraska Trust Deeds Act, while Edenton North filed a secured claim for dues.
- Anthony filed a district court quiet-title action asserting a novel national-banking-law theory; the district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and the Eight Circuit later affirmed.
- The bankruptcy court granted relief from stay to Cattle National, overruled Anthony’s objection to Cattle National’s claim, and partially allowed Edenton North’s claim as secured and unsecured, leading to these appeals.
- Anthony appeals the bankruptcy orders, challenging discovery limits, hearing rights, application of federal disclosure laws, alleged document-signing issues, and Edenton North’s lien and claim treatment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discovery denial | Anthony asserts the court erred in denying discovery related to Cattle National. | Cattle National contends discovery was properly limited and not a basis for reversal. | No abuse of discretion; discovery limits affirmed. |
| Hearing on objection and stay relief | Anthony argues the court should have a hearing before lifting the stay. | Court did conduct hearings; no necessity for an additional hearing. | No abuse of discretion; stay relief affirmed. |
| Federal disclosure laws (TILA/RESPA) applicability | Anthony claims TILA/RESPA disclosures were required for the loan. | Loan was not consumer credit; disclose- claims do not void the debt or create a private right of action. | No applicable private remedy; TILA/RESPA not controlling. |
| Edenton North lien and claim treatment | Edenton North did not have a valid lien or proper notice; its claim should be treated as unsecured. | Lien created by operation of law through covenants; proper notice and partial secured status supported. | Edenton North’s lien valid to extent perfected; balance treated as unsecured. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Laguna Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 30 F.3d 734 (6th Cir.1994) (bad faith factors and 'for cause' stay relief considerations)
- Raleigh v. Illinois Dep’t of Revenue, 530 U.S. 15 (U.S. 2000) (constitutional limits of collection and bankruptcy stay context)
- In re Cedar Shore Resort, Inc., 235 F.3d 375 (8th Cir.2000) (good-faith and debtor-in-possession standards; factual review)
- Be-Mac Transp. Co., Inc., 83 F.3d 1020 (8th Cir.1996) (burden of proof in claims and evidentiary standards in bankruptcy)
- First Nat. Bank v. City of Hartford, 273 U.S. 548 (U.S. 1927) (banking authority to make secured loans and liens on real estate)
- Lantry v. Wallace, 182 U.S. 536 (U.S. 1901) (private right to challenge banking conduct and enforcement limitations)