The Raleigh N&O reports today on a bankruptcy administrator’s finding that the now disbarred Mike Nifong’s bankruptcy petition should not be “presumed to be an abuse.”
Let’s look at what I think are the most important parts of the story (in italics). I’ll comment in plain and you can follow-up on the thread. I’ll especially appreciate corrections if I get some things wrong. I’m not an attorney.
The N&O begins - - -
Mike Nifong, the former Durham district attorney who lost his job and law license for misconduct in the Duke lacrosse case, should not be kicked out of federal bankruptcy court for making too much money, a federal court administrator has concluded.
Michael D. West, a bankruptcy administrator, filed a statement in the case last week.
Nifong's case, West said in his statement, should not be "presumed to be an abuse" even though his annual income is $146,151, or $12,179 a month.
After West issued a statement in February that could have led to dismissal of Nifong's bankruptcy case, the former prosecutor and his attorney, Jim Craven, amended court documents to reclassify the potential debt as nonconsumer, thereby raising the allowable income level.
A statement is a recommendation, not a court ruling. … *****
Yes, it is a recommendation, not a court ruling. As attorneys have explained the matter to me, West’s finding will be taken into account by a bankruptcy judge who is not bound by it.
Also, while Nifong can’t be named as a defendant in a federal civil suit while he’s seeking bacnruptcy protection or subsequently if he’s granted it, he can be called as a witness in discovery proceedings related to civil suits in federal court both during the time he’s seeking protection and after such time as he may be granted bankruptcy protection.
The N&O article makes that clear.
IMO the most important sentence in the article is: Bankruptcy rules would not protect Nifong from financial claims if a judge finds that he acted willfully and maliciously in his prosecution of the players.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs have left no doubt that, if Nifong is denied bankruptcy protection, they’ll move swiftly to reinstate him in the suits. The court has said it's open to such reinstatement.
The entire N&O article is here.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Nifong bankruptcy claim: the latest
Posted by JWM at 11:38 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Thanks John
""Nifong's case, West said in his statement, should not be "presumed to be an abuse" even though his annual income is $146,151, or $12,179 a month."
Sounds like rough times there!
"Also, while Nifong can’t be named as a defendant in a federal civil suit while he’s seeking bankruptcy protection or subsequently if he’s granted it, he can be called as a witness in discovery proceedings related to civil suits in federal court both during the time he’s seeking protection and after such time as he may be granted bankruptcy protection."
Great point. I have said that thing many times, and it seems people often forget the plaintiffs will really never gain much directly from him in financial terms.
I wish any attorney more familiar with the specifics than I am (not an attorney) would step in here to correct me if I am wrong. I believe the court could still attribute a portion of the blame to him, though he would not be held liable for it if he is not named in the suit (if a judgment ever comes into play). Add that to him being subpoenaed to testify, along with all others that could corroborate or refute what his testimony is, and there is not a great difference in the outcome, as I see it, whether he is named in the suit or not.
kbp
ps: I like the spell check feature here now!!
Post a Comment