(Download) "In re Martin" by United States Court Of Appeals For The Sixth Circuit # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: In re Martin
- Author : United States Court Of Appeals For The Sixth Circuit
- Release Date : January 11, 1978
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 47 KB
Description
Per Curiam This is an appeal from an order of the District Court affirming a decision of the Bankruptcy Court. The Bankruptcy Court granted a petition by Appellee (the bankrupt) to declare unenforceable a lien held by Appellant on Appellee's car. The Court found the lien to be violative of Ohio's Retail Installment Sales Act, Ohio Rev. Code § 1317.08, which renders unenforceable any retail installment sales contract that includes a charge for financing a negative equity. In re Sloan, 285 F. Supp. 1 (N.D. Ohio 1968). Appellant conceded that its lien was violative of O.R.C. § 1317.08. It argued, however, that Appellee's petition was barred by O.R.C. § 2305.11(A), which sets a one year statute of limitations for any action upon a statute for a penalty or forfeiture. The Bankruptcy Court rejected this argument, holding that the statute under which Appellee proceeded, O.R.C. § 1317.08, is not a statute for penalty or forfeiture, since it speaks in terms of unenforceability, which is a concept distinct from that of penalty or forfeiture. The one year statute of limitations was therefore held inapplicable, and Appellee's petition was allowed under Ohio's more generous six-year statute of limitations, O.R.C. § 2305.07. The Bankruptcy Court subsequently issued an order declaring Appellant's lien unenforceable. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's decision on two alternative grounds. First, the Appellant had failed to file a notice of appeal within ten days of the Bankruptcy Court's order, as required by 11 U.S.C. § 67(c) and Bankruptcy Rule 802(a). The District Court concluded that lack of such timely notice deprived it of jurisdiction to review the Bankruptcy Court's decision. Second, the District Court concluded that even if it had jurisdiction, it would affirm the Bankruptcy Court's interpretation of the Ohio statute of limitations.