Annotations 01/2011

(plaintiffs, arguing that they had fee simple title to various properties, were trustees that had foreclosed on the properties and subsequently purchased them at foreclosure sales; trial court denied default judgment for plaintiffs; on appeal, court affirmed; sales held to be invalid under state law because plaintiffs had not been assigned the mortgages until after sales completed even though foreclosure sales named the plaintiffs as holders of the mortgages; even though mortgages pooled together in trust (known as a "pooling service agreement") and converted to mortgage-backed securities, mortgages securing notes remained legal title to the tracts and securitization documents did not establish valid assignments to plaintiffs before foreclosure sales - indeed, plaintiff's didn't obtain assignment of note until more than a year after going to court; court noted that while assignment need not be in recordable form at time of notice of sale or at later foreclosure sale, where pool of mortgages is assigned to securitized trust, there must be proof that assignment made by party that held the mortgage). 


(petitioner, unpaid seller of produce notified by state Dept. of Ag that it could be eligible to be paid from statutory bond and state security fund; petitioner filed claims, but Dept. of Ag ruled them to be untimely; court affirmed). 


(debtors are married couple and issue was whether wife's debt was nondischargeable; in order to get loan, husband presented creditor with fraudulent statements regarding couple's livestock collateral; court held that wife was business partner whose ignorance (real or not) of husband's provision of false financial information to creditor was reckless with result that husband's fraud imputed to wife under partnership principles and wife's debt also nondischargeable). 


(case involves financing arrangement put together for debtors in which promissory note and security agreement executed under which debtors pledged all livestock presently owned or later acquired; debtor/husband then gave another creditor false information concerning debtors' livestock collateral which induced creditor to make loan; upon debtors' bankruptcy filing, debt declared non-dischargeable; husband and wife determined to be business partners such that wife should have known about false financial information - wife's debt likewise non-dischargeable; NOTE: case raises question as to whether LLC or corporation would have barred husband's fraud from being imputed to wife). 


(report notes that petroleum accounts for less than one percent of electricity production, thus such renewables as wind and solar, which do not produce transportation fuel can only replace coal and natural gas (which is produced in the United States); report notes that over 40 percent of domestic corn consumption is used for ethanol production which, report notes, provides less than 10 percent of U.S. transportation fuel).


(under Sec. 416(e) of Social Security Act, posthumously-conceived twins were biological children of deceased wage earner for Social Security survivor benefit purposes; case remanded for determination of whether, as of date of decedent's death, children were dependent on decedent). 


(petitioner, a developer, allegedly placed fill material in a "wetland" for which developer was issued an administrative penalty because developer failed to get a stormwater discharge permit; penalty affirmed).  


(amendment to Clean Water Act containing provision allowing municipalities to require stormwater fees to be assessed against federally-owned roads, buildings and structures within the applicable city limits). 


(corporate taxpayer acquired stock of subsidiary at time subsidiary was insolvent and subsidiary's stock became worthless; taxpayer had no excess loss account in subsidiary's stock and made no distributions to taxpayer that caused the insolvency; conversion qualified as identifiable event for purposes of I.R.C. Sec. 165; taxpayer could claim worthless stock loss under I.R.C. Sec. 165(g)). 


(plaintiff, spouse of significant former shareholder of defendant who was criminally convicted of fraud involving overstating electrical generation of wind power to get state tax credits and other federal tax incentives for “renewable” energy, sought injunctive relief to force shareholder meeting; court upheld trial court determination that it would not be equitable to force defendant to hold shareholder meeting; plaintiff’s stock ownership at least partly attributable to the fraud that placed defendant in financial problems; business judgment rule inapplicable). 


(expenses attributable to portion of home that taxpayer used exclusively for business purposes deductible; taxpayer moved business into 7,272 square-foot home; good discussion of use of home by taxpayer's family and business associates with result that some areas of home not used exclusively for business purposes and deductions accordingly denied for those areas). 


(grain payments made by cooperative to members and contract patrons constitute PURPIMs in accordance with I.R.C. Sec. 1382(b)(3); cooperative can compute its I.R.C. Sec. 199 deduction without regard to any deduction for grain payments to members and contract patrons). 


Pages

CALT does not provide legal advice. Any information provided on this website is not intended to be a substitute for legal services from a competent professional. CALT's work is supported by fee-based seminars and generous private gifts. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in the material contained on this website do not necessarily reflect the views of Iowa State University.

RSS​ Facebook Twitter