Kaler v. Slominski, No. 15-2334 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseKip Kaler, as trustee of the debtor's bankruptcy estate, brought suit against Louie Slominski to avoid a land lease that Slominski and the debtor had entered. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) held that the bankruptcy court incorrectly calculated the setoff but affirmed its judgment in all other respects. Despite Slominski's failure to raise his double-recovery argument before the bankruptcy court, the BAP considered it. The court, however, will independently review the bankruptcy court's decision and is not bound by the BAP's decision. The court has discretion to consider a new argument in exceptional circumstances but the court is not convinced to do so on this record. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant the trustee a new trial based on the newly discovered evidence where the newly discovered evidence - consisting primarily of unexecuted lease documents found on a computer not belonging to Slominski - did not undermine its conclusion that Slominski acted in good faith. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the BAP.
Court Description: Smith, Author, with Colloton, Circuit Judge, and Gritzner, District Judge] Civil case - Bankruptcy. The lessee did not raise his double-recovery argument before the bankruptcy court, and while the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel considered the claim, this court independently reviews the bankruptcy court's decision and is not bound by the BAP's decision; exceptional circumstances, such as would justify this court considering the issue, do not exist, and the issue will not be considered; the bankruptcy court did not err in denying the trustee's motion for new trial based on newly-discovered evidence as the court did not clearly err in concluding that the evidence did not undermine its conclusion that the lessee was a good-faith purchaser entitled to an set-off under Section 550(e).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.