Commercial Banking, Collections, and Bankruptcy

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-trucking company’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff-truck driver’s action alleging that defendant breached terms of lease to haul shipments, as well as violated federal Truth-in-Leasing regulations that covered terms of said lease. While plaintiff claimed that defendant had failed to pay him correct amount for said shipments as set forth in lease, plaintiff could not bring instant breach of contract action, where: (1) clause in lease indicated that financial entries made by defendant on payment documents were presumed correct and final if not disputed by plaintiff within 30 days after payment distribution; and (2) plaintiff waited 4 years to file instant lawsuit that essentially challenged said entries. Ct. rejected plaintiff’s claim that said clause created only rebuttable presumption that could be challenged via instant lawsuit.

Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment in action alleging that defendant wrongfully converted plaintiff’s pickle line rolls that had been stored at defendants’ facility awaiting plaintiff’s purchase order to defendants to recondition said rolls. While Dist. Ct. based its ruling on finding that plaintiff had abandoned said rolls where plaintiff did not communicate with defendants regarding said rolls for approximately 32 months under circumstances where parties had assumed that plaintiff would place purchase order within few months, Ct. of Appeals found that there was insufficient evidence for Dist. Ct. to decide on summary judgment that plaintiff had intended to abandon said rolls. This is so, since reasonable jury could conclude that plaintiff’s prolonged silence, standing alone, did not constitute decisive and unambiguous intent to abandon said rolls, especially where there was no evidence that anyone at plaintiff told defendants that it did not want said rolls or did not intend to use or sell them. Dist. Ct. did not err, though, in granting defendants’ summary judgment motion with respect to plaintiff’s similar breach of contract claim, since there was no meeting of minds with respect to how long defendants had agreed to store rolls, and since plaintiff did not know at time of alleged contract formation when, if ever, it would issue purchase order.

Dist. Ct. erred in dismissing plaintiffs’ claim under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, alleging that defendant-debt collector’s dunning letter that threatened to impose “late charges and other charges” was impermissibly deceptive because said charges could not lawfully be imposed under Wisconsin law. While Dist. Ct. based instant dismissal on fact that said phrase matched safe harbor language set forth in Miller, 214 F.2d 872, defendant could not immunize itself by using said language, where said language was not accurate under circumstances of instant case.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting plaintiff’s motion for entry of declaratory judgment that it was entitled to defer payment of $430,000 that was owed to defendant pursuant to contract to purchase defendant’s stock in plaintiff’s company, where parties had entered into agreement with plaintiff’s creditor (Bank) in which parties had acknowledged that plaintiff’s debt to defendant was subordinate to plaintiff’s debt to Bank, and that defendant would not be paid while plaintiff was in default of its obligation to Bank. Record showed that plaintiff was in default to Bank at all relevant times, and that Bank did not give plaintiff permission to pay defendant as was required by parties' agreement with Bank. As such, since plaintiff’s debt to defendant was junior to plaintiff’s debt to Bank, defendant must wait for payment from plaintiff until either Bank consents to plaintiff’s payment to defendant or until plaintiff cures its default of its debt to Bank.

In bankruptcy adversary action by creditor alleging that debtors had either hid or transferred bankruptcy estate assets to family and friends, Bankruptcy Ct. did not err in directing debtors to return $5.5 million to estate, where said funds had been transferred to Indian company one year prior to filing bankruptcy petition. While debtors argued that said transfer was legitimate because it reduced lines of credit for company that was controlled by debtors, Bankruptcy Ct. could find that said transfer was sham, where debtors failed to produce documentation to support their claim, and where there was no evidence that said company treated funds as reduction in lines of credit. Fact that Indian company was not party to instant adversary proceeding did not preclude Bankruptcy Ct. from making said finding where there was no evidence that Indian company took control over said funds. Also, Bankruptcy Ct. did not abuse its discretion in directing debtors’ children to turnover $18,577,954 based upon debtors’ instruction to company to issue stock to debtors’ children in effort to dilute debtors’ interest in said company and to divert assets to their children. While children argued that amount of turnover was erroneous, since it failed to focus on what estate lost in said transfer as opposed to what they had received, Bankruptcy Ct. had discretion to base turnover order on value of stock, and valuation method used was reasonable. Moreover, children did not otherwise challenge valuation of company prior to stock dilution.