Vinhas v. Banoub
6:24-cv-02192
M.D. Fla.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Appellants (Thiago and Elaine Vinhas) leased a home from Appellee (Sami Banoub) in Orlando; following their departure, Banoub obtained a state court judgment for damages and attorney’s fees against them.
- The Vinhases filed for bankruptcy; Banoub commenced an adversary proceeding contesting the dischargeability of the state court debt under 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(4) and (a)(6).
- The parties settled the adversary proceeding, with Appellants agreeing to pay Banoub $30,000 in installments; default would allow Banoub to obtain a non-dischargeable judgment for the full amount claimed in the operative complaint.
- Appellants defaulted under the agreement by making late and then partial payments; Banoub moved for entry of a stipulated judgment based on the default provisions.
- The bankruptcy court held that Appellants had defaulted and ruled Banoub could pursue an amended state court judgment, deciding the "operative complaint" referred to the state court complaint, not the adversary proceeding complaint.
- Appellants appealed, arguing among other things that the bankruptcy court misconstrued the agreement and damages calculations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Appellants defaulted | Payments were late but partial payment should bar default | Acceptance of late payments estops declaration | Bankruptcy court correct: default occurred; anti-waiver clause controls. |
| Waiver/Estoppel Based on Conduct | Course of performance waived right to declare default | No sufficient course or express waiver | No waiver/estoppel; anti-waiver provision precludes defense. |
| "Operative complaint" definition | Refers to Adversarial Proceeding complaint (COD) | Bankruptcy court: state court complaint | "Operative complaint" means COD; bankruptcy court erred on this point. |
| Damages calculation | Should be limited to state court judgment amount | Includes growth in fees/costs as stated in COD | Damages as set out in COD, including attorney fees, are proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Colortex Indus., Inc., 19 F.3d 1371 (11th Cir. 1994) (final order resolves a particular adversary proceeding in bankruptcy)
- In re Williams, 215 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2000) (district courts review bankruptcy decisions in appellate posture)
- In re Gen. Dev. Corp., 84 F.3d 1364 (11th Cir. 1996) (factual findings: clearly erroneous standard; legal conclusions: de novo)
- Schwartz v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 807 F.2d 901 (11th Cir. 1987) (settlement agreements governed by state contract law)
- In re Chira, 567 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2009) (intent of parties determined from whole agreement under Florida law)
- Kelly Tractor Co. v. R.J. Canfield Contracting, Inc., 579 So.2d 261 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991) (limited acceptance of late payments insufficient for estoppel)
- Brody Irrevocable Grantor Tr. No. 2 v. Brody, 322 So. 3d 150 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2021) (partial payment does not discharge full obligation)