CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
INDIAN HARBOR INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CLIFFORD ZUCKER (16-1695), in his capacity as Liquidation Trustee for the Liquidation Trust of Capitol Bancorp Ltd. and Financial Commerce Corporation; JOSEPH REID (16-1697); CRISTIN K. REID and BRIAN K. ENGLISH (16-1698),
Defendants-Appellants.
   Nos. 16-1695/1697/1698
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
No. 1:14-cv-01017—Janet T. Neff, District Judge.
Argued: March 8, 2017
Decided and Filed: June 20, 2017
Before: DAUGHTREY, SUTTON, and DONALD, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

SUTTON, Circuit Judge. Capitol Bancorp went bankrupt. After negotiations between Capitol’s officers and the company’s creditors during the bankruptcy process, Capitol created a Liquidation Trust to pursue the estate’s legal claims. The Liquidation Trustee sued Capitol’s officers for $18.8 million, alleging they breached their fiduciary duties to the company. Indian Harbor Insurance filed this lawsuit in response, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Trustee’s lawsuit falls within the “insured-versus-insured” exclusion in Capitol’s liability insurance policy. The district court agreed that the policy does not cover the Trustee’s action, and so do we.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
JOSEPH BAILEY,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
CITY OF ANN ARBOR; CHRISTOPHER FITZPATRICK, WILLIAM STANFORD, and MICHAEL DORTCH, in their individual and official capacities,
Defendants-Appellants.
   No. 16-2478
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Flint.
No. 4:14-cv-12002—Linda V. Parker, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: June 20, 2017
Before: KEITH, BATCHELDER, and SUTTON, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

SUTTON, Circuit Judge. In this qualified immunity case, Ann Arbor police officers relied on a security camera’s footage of a robbery, allegedly without accounting for inconsistent eyewitness testimony, in drafting a search warrant for Joseph Bailey’s residence. Yet the warrant did not say whether the description of Bailey came from the robbery victim or just the video and indeed mentioned both sources of information. The description thus was not deliberately false, and the district court erred in holding that it was. A review of the video also confirms that there were few disparities between the video and the description in the warrant. Even if we strip the warrant of any possible falsities, a fair probability remained that the officers would find evidence of the robbery in Bailey’s home, meaning his Fourth Amendment claim under § 1983 fails as a matter of law. And because the warrant was the sole evidence of underlying unconstitutional conduct by Ann Arbor employees, his Monell claim fails as well.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
IN RE: ANTOINETTE COLLEEN PACE,
Debtor.
   DOCKETNUMBER
Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Youngstown.
No. 15-42267—Kay Woods, Judge.
Decided and Filed: June 20, 2017
Before: DELK, PRESTON, and WISE, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

TRACEY N. WISE, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judge. Appellant/Debtor Antoinette Pace (“Debtor”) owned nonresidential real estate that foreclosure creditor The Farmers National Bank of Canfield (“FNB”) sold in a prepetition foreclosure sale. After the sale but still prepetition, FNB obtained a deficiency judgment against Debtor and filed two judicial liens. During her chapter 7 case, Debtor filed a motion pursuant to § 522(f)(1)(A)1 to avoid the FNB judgment liens (and two other unrelated judgment liens) on the grounds that they impaired Debtor’s Ohio homestead exemption in her residence. The bankruptcy court denied Debtor’s motion as to one of FNB’s judicial liens, ruling that § 522(f)(2)(C) specifically prohibits the avoidance of a deficiency judgment lien because it is a lien based on a judgment arising out of a mortgage foreclosure. The court denied Debtor’s motion seeking avoidance of FNB’s other judicial lien, without prejudice, to the extent that it alleged that the lien was duplicative of FNB’s first judicial lien. The bankruptcy court granted the motion to avoid the other two unrelated judicial liens.

For the reasons stated below, the Panel REVERSES the bankruptcy court’s ruling that § 522(f)(2)(C) precludes avoidance of a mortgage deficiency judgment lien and REMANDS this case to the bankruptcy court for entry of an order consistent with this Opinion.