In re John Richards Homes Building Co.
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
291 B.R. 727 (2003)
- Written by Ryan Hill, JD
Facts
John Richards Homes Building Co. (JRH) (plaintiff) was a builder of expensive homes. Adell (defendant) signed a contract with JRH to purchase land and a newly constructed home built by JRH for about $3,000,000. A dispute arose between Adell and JRH about the construction of the home. Adell sued JRH based on numerous claims, and JRH countersued. Adell subsequently filed an involuntary bankruptcy petition in bankruptcy court against JRH and claimed $800,000 for fraud and breach of contract. JRH filed a motion to dismiss Adell’s involuntary bankruptcy petition, claiming that a bona fide dispute existed, under which the involuntary bankruptcy petition could not be allowed to proceed. The court dismissed Adell’s involuntary bankruptcy petition, because Adell knew or should have known that the claim was the subject of a bona fide dispute. During the course of the involuntary bankruptcy proceedings, Adell withheld critical information about the dispute from his bankruptcy attorney. Adell hired a public-relations firm to publicize the bankruptcy proceedings in an effort to damage JRH’s business and threatened JRH with criminal prosecution. Adell also falsely told other JRH creditors that they would only receive compensation on their claims if they joined his involuntary bankruptcy petition. After Adell’s involuntary bankruptcy petition was dismissed, JRH requested compensatory and punitive damages from Adell, alleging that the involuntary petition had been filed in bad faith.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rhodes, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 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.