North Dakota v. Bala, No. 21-6007 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Debtor, licensed under North Dakota’s pari-mutuel wagering system, filed for bankruptcy in 2004. Ten years later, the district court ruled that the state was not authorized to collect certain taxes from the Debtor. North Dakota agreed to pay the estate $15 million. Creditors asserted claims. Although the state constitution provides that “the entire net proceeds of such games of chance are to be devoted to educational, charitable, patriotic, fraternal, religious, or other public-spirited uses,” North Dakota did not raise the rights of any charities.
In 2018, the bankruptcy court ruled on the claims. North Dakota filed a new proof of claim. The court concluded that the state lacked parens patriae authority to assert claims on behalf of charities. The Eighth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) remanded. On remand, the state attempted to add a breach of contract claim. The bankruptcy court denied that motion and concluded that the contract claim had no merit. The court also rejected a constitutional-statutory claim.
The BAP affirmed, rejecting arguments that North Dakota law requires that charities, not Debtor, recover the remaining tax settlement funds and that the court erred when it disallowed the contract claim. The state constitution concerns the legislature and does not govern the actions of private parties such as Debtor. Debtor paid the taxes originally; the reimbursement of those improperly-paid taxes should inure to the benefit of Debtor after distribution under the bankruptcy priority scheme.
Court Description: [Dow, Author, with Shodeen and Ridgway, Bankruptcy Judges] Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. The bankruptcy court did not err in disallowing the State's Statutory Claim as the State failed to establish either a constitutional or statutory basis for the claim to the remaining tax settlement funds; the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying the State's request to reopen the record on remand to permit it to supplement the record with exhibits related to its contract claim; nor did the court abuse its discretion by denying the State's motion to amend its claim; while the court denied the State's request to add the contract claim, the court essentially addressed the claim on the merits and did not err in determining the State had not proved the existence of a contract during the relevant time frame or any breach if a contract did exist; motion for sanctions against the State denied, as the appeal issues, while unpersuasive, were not frivolous. [ January 06, 2022 ]
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.