Bank of America, N.A. v. Toledo-Cardona

Consolidated into: Bank of America, N.A. v. Caulkett

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
14-163	11th Cir.	Mar 24, 2015 Tr.	Jun 1, 2015	TBD	Thomas	OT 2014

Holding: A debtor in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding may not void a junior mortgage lien under 11 U.S.C. § 506(d) when the debt owed on a senior mortgage lien exceeds the current value of the collateral if the creditor’s claim is both secured by a lien and allowed under Section 502 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Judgment: Reversed and remanded, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on June 1, 2015.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Opinion analysis: Bad news for "underwater" homeowners (Amy Howe)
Argument analysis: Navigating between Scylla and Charybdis on underwater mortgages (Amy Howe)
Argument preview: Underwater mortgages and the Bankruptcy Code (Amy Howe)
Dealing with "underwater" mortgages (Lyle Denniston)
Petitions of the day (Maureen Johnston)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Aug 13 2014	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 12, 2014)
Aug 25 2014	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including October 14, 2014.
Oct 6 2014	Brief of respondent Edelmiro Toledo-Cardona in opposition filed.
Oct 21 2014	Reply of petitioner Bank of America, N.A. filed.
Oct 22 2014	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 7, 2014.
Nov 10 2014	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 14, 2014.
Nov 17 2014	Petition GRANTED The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 13-1421 is granted. The cases are consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument.
Nov 18 2014	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from respondents David Caulkett, and Elmiro Toledo-Cardona. VIDED
Nov 21 2014	The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including January 9, 2015. VIDED
Nov 21 2014	The time to file respondents' brief(s) on the merits is extended to and including February 17, 2015. VIDED
Dec 4 2014	Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner Bank of America, N.A. VIDED.
Dec 15 2014	Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED. VIDED
Jan 9 2015	Brief of petitioner Bank of America, N.A. filed. VIDED.
Jan 16 2015	Brief amici curiae of Loan Syndications and Trading Association, et al filed. VIDED.
Jan 16 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Community Bankers Association of Illinois filed. VIDED.
Feb 2 2015	SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, March 24, 2015. VIDED
Feb 3 2015	Record requested from U.S.C.A. 11th Circuit.
Feb 12 2015	CIRCULATED
Feb 17 2015	Brief of respondent David B. Caulkett filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Feb 19 2015	Brief amici curiae of Professors Jagdeep S. Bhandari, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Feb 23 2015	Brief amici curiae of National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys and AARP filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Feb 23 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Adam J. Levitin, Professor of Law filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Feb 24 2015	Brief amici curiae of Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Feb 24 2015	Brief amicus curiae of NYU Law School Bankruptcy Appellate Clinic filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Feb 24 2015	Brief amici curiae of Bankruptcy Law Professors Robert M. Lawless, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Feb 24 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Professor Margaret Howard filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Feb 24 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Occupy the SEC filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Mar 16 2015	Reply of petitioner Bank of America, N.A. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Mar 24 2015	Argued. For petitioner: Danielle Spinelli, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Stephanos Bibas, Philadelphia, Pa.
Jun 1 2015	Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Ginsburg, Alito, and Kagan, JJ., joined, and in which Kennedy, Breyer, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined except as to the footnote. VIDED.
Jul 6 2015	JUDGMENT ISSUED.

Featured Posts

Opinion analysis: Justices uphold arbitration exemption for transportation workers in rare victory for arbitration opponents – Ronald Mann

Argument analysis: When is the government not really the government for immunity from tort liability? – Gregory Sisk

Argument analysis: Quiescent bench dubious about broad fee awards in copyright cases – Ronald Mann
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
The Supreme Court released additional orders from the January 11 conference on Monday; the justices called for the views of the U.S. solicitor general in CSX Transportation Inc. v. Alabama Department of Revenue, Alabama Department of Revenue v. CSX Transportation Inc. and Toshiba Corp. v. Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund.
On Tuesday, the justices released their opinions in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira and Stokeling v. United States.
On Monday, the justices heard oral argument in Thacker v. Tennessee Valley Authority and Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc.
On Tuesday, the justices heard oral argument in Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. v. Jackson and Azar v. Allina Health Services.
On Wednesday, the justices hear oral argument in Knick v. Township of Scott and Tennessee Wine & Spirits Retailers Association v. Blair.
On Friday, the justices meet for their January 18 conference.
Recent Decisions
- New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira A court should determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s Section 1 exclusion for disputes involving the “contracts of employment” of certain transportation workers applies before ordering arbitration; here, truck driver Dominic Oliveira’s independent contractor operating agreement with New Prime Inc. falls within that exception.
- Stokeling v. United States The Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause encompasses a robbery offense that, like Florida’s law, requires the criminal to overcome the victim’s resistance.
- Culbertson v. Berryhill The Social Security Act’s fee cap of 25 percent of past-due benefits imposed on attorneys who successfully represent Title II benefit claimants in court proceedings applies only to fees for court representation and not to aggregate fees for both court and agency representation.
- Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc. The “wholly groundless” exception to the general rule that courts must enforce contracts that delegate threshold arbitrability questions to an arbitrator, not a court, is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedent.
- City of Escondido, California v. Emmons The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit failed to conduct the analysis required by Supreme Court precedents in determining whether two Escondido police officers were entitled to qualified immunity.
- Shoop v. Hill Because Danny Hill’s intellectual disability claim must be evaluated based solely on holdings of the Supreme Court that were clearly established at the time the state-court decisions were rendered, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit’s reliance on Moore v. Texas -- which was handed down much later -- was plainly improper.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
- Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. (1) Whether a state may require health-care facilities to dispose of fetal remains in the same manner as other human remains, i.e., by burial or cremation; and (2) whether a state may prohibit abortions motivated solely by the race, sex or disability of the fetus and require abortion doctors to inform patients of the prohibition.
More Petitions »
Major Cases
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Department of Commerce v. U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
  Whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker—including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking Executive Branch officials—when there is no evidence that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 41

Cases decided 9

Summary reversals 2

Merits cases granted to date 73

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Jan. 2019

Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
		1 Holiday	2	3	4 Conference	5
6	7 Orders MERCK SHARP & DOHME CORP. V. ALBRECHT (17-290) OBDUSKEY V. MCCARTHY & HOLTHUS LLP (17-1307)	8 HERRERA V. WYOMING (17-532) FOURTH ESTATE PUBLIC BENEFIT CORP. V. WALL-STREET.COM, LLC (17-571) Opinions	9 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CALIFORNIA V. HYATT (17-1299)	10	11 Conference	12
13	14 Orders THACKER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (17-1201) RIMINI STREET INC. V. ORACLE USA INC. (17-1625)	15 HOME DEPOT U.S.A. INC. V. JACKSON (17-1471) AZAR V. ALLINA HEALTH SERVICES (17-1484) Opinions	16 KNICK V. TOWNSHIP OF SCOTT, PENNSYLVANIA (17-647) TENNESSEE WINE AND SPIRITS RETAILERS ASSOCIATION V. BLAIR (18-96)	17	18 Conference	19
20	21 Holiday	22 Orders	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
First Mondays see all
Videos see all

Justice Sotomayor at Harvard

On November 13, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit and Judge Susan Carney of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit presided over the final round of the 2018 Ames Moot Court Competition at Harvard Law School.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

Cases argued	41
Cases decided	9
Summary reversals	2
Merits cases granted to date	73

Editor's Note :

Bank of America, N.A. v. Toledo-Cardona

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Featured Posts

Opinion analysis: Justices uphold arbitration exemption for transportation workers in rare victory for arbitration opponents – Ronald Mann

Argument analysis: When is the government not really the government for immunity from tort liability? – Gregory Sisk

Argument analysis: Quiescent bench dubious about broad fee awards in copyright cases – Ronald Mann

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Conference of January 11, 2019

Major Cases

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Jan. 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

First Mondays see all

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award