In re Boise County
United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Idaho
465 B.R. 156 (2011)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Boise County (plaintiff) was a municipality in the State of Idaho. In 2009, two companies (collectively, Alamar) (defendants) filed a lawsuit against Boise County, alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act. In late 2010, the jury ruled in Alamar’s favor, and the court entered a $4 million judgment against the county (the Alamar judgment). The county could also owe up to $1.5 million in Alamar’s attorney fees and costs. The county attempted to negotiate with Alamar to pay a reduced amount on the judgment and made a settlement offer of $3.2 million. Alamar rejected the offer and moved aggressively to execute its judgment. In March 2011, the county petitioned for Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection. The county’s financial documents showed that it was generally paying its debts as they came due except for approximately $550,000 of medical-indigency claims, which were up to two years old. The county had apparently discovered the medical-indigency claims in preparing schedules for the bankruptcy petition. The county had assets of over $27.7 million and liabilities of about $7.4 million, including the $4 million Alamar judgment and $1.5 million for Alamar’s attorney fees. The county had cash or cash equivalents of $9.9 million and the ability to pay emergency liabilities by issuing debt or through other financing methods. Alamar disputed the county’s insolvency.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Myers, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.