Call for a professional consult today 734.281.2050

All posts tagged discharge

Posted:
February 20, 2013
Tags:
Comments:
0

Employment Cases in the News

Employment Cases in the News

 

     The Statesman Journal (Oregon) recently reported that a government employee filed a claim for public policy discharge against her employer. In Michigan a discharge against public policy is an exception to the employment at will rule. Generally, an employee, not in a union, or not protected by a written contract has no protection against non-discriminatory discharges.

 

     However, in Michigan even such an at-will employee may not be terminated for the employer’s violation of a public policy. For an example, an employee may not be fired for refusing to violate the law. Such a case was Trombetta v. Detroit, T&IR, Co., 81 Mich App 489 (1979). In fact, it expressly affirmed the following principal:

 

“Such a cause of action has been found to be implied where the alleged reason for the discharge of the employee was failure or refusal to violate a law in the course of employment. Thus, in [citation omitted], the Court said that it would be impermissible to discharge an employee for refusing to falsify pollution control reports that were required to be filed with the state.”

***

“This court has recognized exceptions to the well established rule that at-will employment contracts are terminable at any time for any reason by either party. These exceptions were created to present individuals from contravening the public policy of this state. It is without question that the public policy of this state does not condone attempts to violate its duly enacted laws.”

 

     If you or a loved one have been fired for refusing to follow an illegal order at work, call Guy Vining.

 

Guy Vining has practiced law throughout the state of Michigan. His office is located in the downriver city of Taylor where he primarily serves the Metro-Detroit area. He has represented employers and employees in employment litigation in the trial court and the appellate courts in the following areas: whistleblower, breach of contract, public policy, discrimination, wage and hour violation, covenants not to compete, Americans with disabilities action and retaliation

Posted:
September 19, 2012
Tags:
Comments:
0

Discrimination Cases in the News: Whistleblowers

Discrimination Cases in the News:
Whistleblowers

Reuters recently reported that a former employee of Infosys filed a whistleblower case against it. The employee alleges that he was discharged after being harassed for reporting illegal activity at work. Specifically, the employee claimed concerns that he was discharged for reporting visa, tax, and billing fraud.

In a recent blog we addressed the Michigan Whisleblower statute. See: MCL 15.362. The statute makes it illegal to discipline or discriminate against or discharge an employee because the employee reports or is about to report to a public body a suspected violation of laws.

In Michigan there is another interesting employee cause of action called discharge in violation of public policy. Here’s what it is. In Michigan, as is most, if not all, other states, non-union employees are considered employees at will. That means that aside from statutory protections they are subjected to discharge even without good cause. However, even an at-will employee is protected if his or her discharge is predicated upon a violation of a public policy. For instance, it would be illegal to discharge an employee who refused to participate in creating false pollution control records, assisting in tax fraud and so on. In a future blog we will examine some interesting cases of employer liability for discharges in violation of public policy.

Guy Vining of the Vining Law Group has been privileged to have represented employees in such cases, as well as, employers. He was represented employers and employees in the trial and appellate courts in these areas. If you or a loved one feels as though you were discharged as a violation of public policy, feel free to call Guy Vining today for a no-charge consultation.

Guy Vining has practiced law throughout the state of Michigan. His office is located in the city of Taylor, Michigan, where he primarily serves the Metro-Detroit area. He has represented employers and employees in employment litigation in the trial court and the appellate courts in the following areas: whistleblower, breach of contract, public policy, discrimination, wage and hour violation, covenants not to compete, Americans with disabilities action and retaliation

Posted:
August 27, 2012
Tags:
Comments:
0

Bankruptcy Cases in the News

Bankruptcy Cases in the News

In a recent case, local Bankruptcy Court Judge Walter Shapero granted the Trustee’s Motion to dismiss a debtors’ case under 11 USC 707 (b)(3). The reason was that the debtors with “some belt tightening” should not have been in a Chapter 7 but had sufficient income to pay a dividend to unsecured creditors and so would have to elect to dismiss or proceed in a Chapter 13.

The case is Meletios Golematis, Case No.: 11-52238 out of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Michigan. The case turned upon whether the debtors were sufficiently needy – although technically qualified – for Chapter 7 relief. In other words, it was not alleged that the Debtors were dishonest or did anything wrong but argued whether they had an ability to repay some unsecured non-priority creditors going forward. The Court framed the inquiry as follows.

Authority to dismiss a case under Chapter 7 for abuse is derived from §707 (b)(1), which provides in part:

“After notice and hearing, the court, on its own motion or on a motion by the United States trustee, trustee (or bankruptcy administrator, if any), or any party in interest, may dismiss a case filed by an individual debtor under this chapter whose debts are primarily consumer debts, or, with the debtor’s consent, convert such a case to a case under Chapter 11 or 13 of this title, if it finds that the granting of relief would be an abuse of the provisions of this chapter.”

Under §707 (b)(3)(B), when bad faith is not a factor, courts examine the totality of the circumstances in determining whether the debtor’s financial situation constitutes abuse warranting dismissal. The UST carries the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence the applicability of this ground for dismissal. In the Sixth Circuit a totality of the circumstances inquiry under §707 (b)(3)(B) involves an analysis of whether the debtor displays a lack of honesty or want of need, either of which alone may provide sufficient justification for dismissal. In re Krohn, 886 F.2d 123, 126 (6th Cir. 1989) In this case, the UST does not allege that Debtors display a lack of honesty. Instead, the UST questions whether Debtors are in need of relief under Chapter 7.

In determining whether a debtor is sufficiently needy to justify granting relief under Chapter 7, this Court analyzes whether the debtor has an ability to repay its unsecured non-priority creditors. Krohn, 886 F.2d at 126.

The case offers an excellent guide to lawyers and lay-people contemplating bankruptcies as to what are reasonable and necessary expenses for: private school tuition, children’s activities and sports, 401(K) contributions, home maintenance and overall abilities to fund a Chapter 13 plan. If you have these types of expenses you might wish to give this case a read to see how they are viewed locally – a genuine family expense or temporary luxury to be forgone for a while.

Again, the goal is equitable treatment to debtors and creditors. This is the way to a debtor’s fresh start and bankruptcy discharge. This case points out that it is not equitable to schedule unreasonably high costs of living to the creditors who would otherwise enjoy a little dividend on the debt owed to them.

[Guy Vining, a bankruptcy attorney, in metro-Detroit, maintains his office in Taylor, Michigan, where he serves the downriver communities of Monroe, South Rockwood, Gibraltar, Brownstown Township, Grosse Ile, Woodhaven, Trenton, Southgate, Riverview, Allen Park, Lincoln Park, Dearborn, Dearborn Heights, Westland, Wayne, and Ecorse. If you or a family member of friend would like a no-obligation no cost consultation/financial analysis, just call or E-mail Guy Vining of Vining Law Group, P.L.C to schedule a meeting.]

Posted:
August 2, 2012
Tags:
Comments:
0

Bankruptcy Cases in the News

Bankruptcy Cases in the News

In previous blog postings we have discussed on many occasions the basic tenet that the honest debtor is entitled to relief of a discharge in bankruptcy. But what about those debtors that are dishonest or engage in risky behavior that implicate or harm others. The Bankruptcy Code provides for these types of cases in 11 USC 523 as exceptions to the general rule that in exchange for full disclosures and non-exempt assets that a debtor can obtain a complete discharge and a fresh start. In addition, a body of judge made decisions had also developed interpreting the various parts of 11 USC 523.

Most of the exceptions to discharge are common sense and are not surprising. For instance, debts arising from fraud, false pretenses, misrepresentations, luxury charges made on the eve of filing bankruptcy, child support, alimony, taxes and other types of intentional injuries. These are matters which evidence dishonorable conduct or a bad actor that should not be assisted.

In a very recent case Judge Walter Shapero of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District, Southern Division of Michigan decided a very interesting case. In that case it was fairly undisputed that the debtor was a very reckless driver of an automobile which led to an automobile crash causing personal injuries. When the debtor filed her bankruptcy In re Gumprecht, Case No.: 11-47982; Ad. Pro. No. 11-05909, the injured party objected to the discharge as being unfair based upon 11 USC 523(a)(6) a willfully caused injury. As mentioned the evidence showed that the debtor’s driving was horrendous but there was nothing to show that an injury was specifically intended or willful and malicious. Judge Sharpero held that the case must be reviewed under the standards announced in Kawaauhau v. Geiger, 523 U.S. 57 (1998) and in re Markowitz, 190 F3d 455 (6th Cir. 1999). As such, he stated:

    Until 1999, the Sixth Circuit’s standard for § 523(a)(6)’s “willful” requirement was rather lenient. As long as a debtor could be shown to have intentionally committed an act which led to an injury, he would be found to have acted “willfully” under § 523(a)(6), regardless of whether or not he actually intended the injury. Perkins v. Scharffe, 817 F.2d 392, 394 (6th Cir. 1987). Perkins was overruled in 1998 by the U.S. Supreme Court case of [Geiger]. In Geiger, the Supreme Court held that only acts done with the intent to cause the actually injury will rise to the level of a “willful and malicious injury” as used in § 523(a)(6): We now hold that unless “the actor desires to cause consequences of his act, or… believes that the consequences are substantially certain to result from it,” he has not committed a “willful and malicious injury” as defined under § 523(a)(6). [Markowitz, 190 F.3d at 464.]

Under the new standard the burden of proof is much higher for the creditor. For that reason Judge Shapero determined that the facts that the creditor could establish were insufficient and dismissed the objections to discharge.

[Guy Vining, a bankruptcy attorney, in metro-Detroit, maintains his office in Taylor, Michigan, where he serves the downriver communities of Monroe, South Rockwood, Gibraltar, Brownstown Township, Grosse Ile, Woodhaven, Trenton, Southgate, Riverview, Allen Park, Lincoln Park, Dearborn, Dearborn Heights, Westland, Wayne, and Ecorse. If you or a family member of friend would like a no-obligation no cost consultation/financial analysis, just call or E-mail Guy Vining of Vining Law Group, P.L.C to schedule a meeting.]

Posted:
May 10, 2012
Tags:
Comments:
0

Bankruptcy Cases in the News

Bankruptcy Cases in the News

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an important and very interesting case recently in White v. Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc., 617 F3d. 472 (2010). This Court is the Court of Appeals for a great number of Midwestern Bankruptcy Courts, including the State of Michigan. The White case shows the importance of full disclosure of all assets in a consumer bankruptcy case. As we have discussed in the past blog postings, failure to make full disclosure can result in the dismissal of a case, attorney fees and in some instances, criminal charges.

The White case dealt with an interesting additional concept called “judicial estoppel.” Here is what happened. When Mrs. White signed and filed her bankruptcy petition she forgot to list as a possible asset of a lawsuit against her former employer, Wyndham. Apparently, the reason she had financial problems was because she had been discharged under circumstances which were suspicious of employment discrimination. A potential lawsuit is an asset.

Neither in her plan, nor in her schedules did she disclose to the Bankruptcy Court or her creditors that she had a significant cause of action for employment discrimination against her former employer, Wyndham. After her plan was approved and before she filed suit against Wyndham, she made some attempts to modify her bankruptcy schedules regarding the employment claim. Still, the U.S. District Court dismissed her lawsuit for discrimination, at her former employer’s request, based upon judicial estoppel and the 6th Circuit affirmed the dismissal. The 6th Circuit discussed in the opinion the doctrine of judicial estoppel:

    In the bankruptcy context, this court has previously noted that “judicial estoppel” bars a party from (1) asserting a position that is contrary to one that a party has asserted under oath in a prior proceeding, where (2) the prior court adopted the contrary position either as a preliminary matter or as part of a final disposition. [Citations omitted.] Id. At 476.

The White court noted that the doctrine was “utilized in order to preserve the integrity of the courts by preventing a party from abusing the judicial process through cynical gamesmanship.” Id. The Court further noted that it is the debtor’s absolute duty to disclose all assets to the Bankruptcy Court pursuant to various statutes in the Bankruptcy Code. Further, that based upon the purposes of bankruptcy:

  “[W]hen a bankruptcy court – which must protect the interest of all creditors – approves a payment from the bankruptcy estate on the basis of a party’s assertion of a given position that in our view is sufficient ‘judicial acceptance’ to estop the party from later advancing an inconsistent position.” [Citations omitted.]. Id. At 479.

The omission to list property or the true value assets is viewed as very significant when compared to the purpose of bankruptcy law. The White court specifically noted:

    “[T]he disclosure obligations of consumer debtors are at the very core of the bankruptcy process and meeting these obligations is part of the price that debtors pay in receiving the bankruptcy discharge. [Citations Omitted.] Viewed against the backdrop of the bankruptcy system and the ends it seeks to achieve, the importance of the disclosure duty can not be over emphasized. Id. At 480.

 
Dismissal of a significant claim was a drastic remedy. However, it was a remedy necessary to protect the bankruptcy court system. Had Mrs. White disclosed the Trustee might have brought the claim and any settlement or judgment could have been used to pay her creditors which would have got her out of her plan sooner, helping her and her creditors. When you and your bankruptcy lawyer file a petition for bankruptcy, yours assets (subject to proper exemptions) are no longer yours. The trustee has a right to bring those cases for the benefit of all administrative claimants and creditors. If all these folks get paid and there is money left over, the debtor will receive the balance.

The importance of the disclosure duty can not be over emphasized. Be sure to disclose all potential claims with your bankruptcy attorney. Otherwise, you will jeopardize your fresh start.

[Guy Vining, a bankruptcy attorney, in metro-Detroit, maintains his office in the city of Taylor, Michigan, where he serves the downriver communities of Monroe, South Rockwood, Gibraltar, Brownstown Township, Grosse Ile, Woodhaven, Trenton, Southgate, Riverview, Allen Park, Lincoln Park, Dearborn, Dearborn Heights, Westland, Wayne, and Ecorse. If you or a family member of friend would like a no-obligation no cost consultation/financial analysis, just call or E-mail Guy Vining of Vining Law Group, P.L.C to schedule a meeting.]

Posted:
May 8, 2012
Tags:
Comments:
0

Bankruptcy Cases in the News

Bankruptcy Cases in the News

Judge Thomas Tucker of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan recently issued an interesting and important decision in the Mehlhose case (11-64190), the lengthy opinion discusses, among other things, the inherent power of the Bankruptcy Court to sanction (punish) debtors who do not play by the rules and make dishonest disclosures. In this case the Court determined that the husband-wife debtors had significantly under reported their income and filed their case in bad faith otherwise. Specifically, Judge Tucker determined that the debtors “lied under oath” concerning their income and filed a case that could not serve a legitimate purpose as they had or should have known that their particular debts were non-dischargeable. Consequently, it was determined that the case was filed in bad faith and merely for delay. The Court set up an evidentiary hearing that the debtors did not appear to testify and explain their actions. Judge Tucker noted that a Bankruptcy Court has both the inherent and the statutory authority to sanction misconduct:

In John Richards Home Bldg. Co., L.L.C. v. Adell (In re John Richards Homes Bldg. Co., L.L.C.), 404 B.R. 220, 226-27 (E.D. Mich. 2009), the court discusses the scope of a bankruptcy court’s inherent power to issue sanctions as follows:

    Bankruptcy Courts, like all courts, have an inherent power to issue sanctions, as explained by the Untied States Supreme Court in the Chambers case. See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L. Ed. 2d 27 (1991) (“Courts of justice are universally acknowledged to be vested, by their creation with power to impose silence, respect, and decorum, in their presence, and submissions to their lawful mandates.” (Quoting Anderson v. Dunn, 19 U.S. 204, 6 Wheat. 204, 227, 5 L.Ed. 242 (1821)). The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has similarly stated that “[b]ankruptcy courts, like Article III courts, enjoy inherent power to sanction parties for improper conduct.” Mapother & Mapother, P.S.C. v. Cooper (In re Downs), 103 F. 3d 472, 477 (6th Cir. 1996). … [T]he inherent power to issue sanctions is not limited to only those instances where a party violates a court order. “The federal courts’ inherent power to protect the orderly administration of justice and to maintain the authority and dignity of the court extends to a full range of litigation abuses.” Mitan v. Int’l Fid. Ins. Co., 23 Fed. Appx. 292, 298 (6th Cir. 2001) (ruling that a court can award sanctions “when bad faith occurs”).

In addition to a bankruptcy court’s inherent authority to sanction misconduct, 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) provides a bankruptcy court with statutory authority to do so. It provides:

(a)The court may issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary;or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title. No provisions of this title providing for the raising of an issue by a party in interest shall be construed to preclude the court from, sua sponte, taking any action or making any determination necessary or appropriate to enforce or implement court orders or rules, or to prevent an abuse of process.

In the end, the Court noted that sanctions would well include attorney fees. Debtors were sanctions by having their case dismissed, being ordered to pay reasonable attorney fees and costs and having been barred from refilling for 2 years. In filing your case, make sure to make complete and honest disclosures of debts, assets and income to the court, trustee and your creditors.

That is the trade-off. To obtain a discharge and a fresh start, the debtor must make an honest and full disclosure. Do not jeopardize your life or liberty and fresh start.

[Guy Vining, a bankruptcy attorney, in metro-Detroit, maintains his office in the city of Taylor, Michigan, where he serves the downriver communities of Monroe, South Rockwood, Gibraltar, Brownstown Township, Grosse Ile, Woodhaven, Trenton, Southgate, Riverview, Allen Park, Lincoln Park, Dearborn, Dearborn Heights, Westland, Wayne, and Ecorse. If you or a family member of friend would like a no-obligation no cost consultation/financial analysis, just call or E-mail Guy Vining of Vining Law Group, P.L.C to schedule a meeting.]

 

Posted:
March 30, 2012
Tags:
Comments:
0

Top Ten Bankruptcy Mistakes: Bankruptcy Fraud

TOP TEN BANKRUPTCY MISTAKES

 

#9

Bankruptcy Fraud

The United States Bankruptcy Code, 11 USC 101 et seq. contains numerous provisions addressing issues of fraud. Essentially, the subject matter can be divided into two broad areas: (1) civil bankruptcy fraud and (2) criminal bankruptcy fraud. Each have their own serious implication with the main point to be made being … honestly and thoughtfully make full disclosures.

One of the primary purposes of filing your bankruptcy is to obtain a discharge which is essentially the order by which your obligations are cancelled. The discharge can be denied, however, for debtor misconduct in violating disclosure requirements, cooperation requirements and other misconduct. In the civil context 11 USC 727 (a) provides bases for the denial of a debtor’s discharge. One of which is under 11 USC 727(a)(4), which, in part, provides that the court shall not grant a discharge if the debtor “knowingly and fraudulently, in or in connection with the case… made false oath or an account…” Being denied a discharge is a disaster in itself but the criminal ramifications portend time in prison, too.

For instance, the making of a fraudulent statement in connection with a bankruptcy case may also constitute a crime. A violation of 18 USC 152 is a five year felony. A person who:

    (1) Knowingly and fraudulently conceals from a custodian, trustee, marshal, or other officer of the court charged with the control or custody of property, or, in connection with a case under title 11, from creditors or the United States Trustee, any property belonging to the estate of a debtor;

(2) Knowingly and fraudulently makes a false oath or account in or in relation to any case under title 11; or,

(3) Knowingly and fraudulently makes a false declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, in or in relation to any case under title 11;

may be convicted under this felony statute.

In the end, your fresh start and freedom are too precious to risk. Always make a full and fair disclosure of assets in your bankruptcy case or do not file it.

[Guy Vining, a bankruptcy attorney, in metro-Detroit, maintains his office in Taylor, Michigan, where he serves the downriver communities of Monroe, South Rockwood, Gibraltar, Brownstown Township, Grosse Ile, Woodhaven, Trenton, Southgate, Riverview, Allen Park, Lincoln Park, Dearborn, Dearborn Heights, Westland, Wayne, and Ecorse. If you or a family member of friend would like a no-obligation no cost consultation/financial analysis, just call or E-mail Guy Vining of Vining Law Group, P.L.C to schedule a meeting.]