KAUR et al v. HEBENSTREIT, In re: HARBHUPINDER BAINS

Filing 25

ORDER. This Court concludes that the factual determinations of the Bankruptcy Court are well supported by the record. The Bankruptcy Judge supports his reasoning well in the above quoted portion of his opinion. For these reasons the opinion of the Bankruptcy Court is AFFIRMED. Signed by Judge Larry J. McKinney on 3/17/2015. Copies sent via U.S. Mail. (BGT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
RAJWINDER KAUR,
Appellant,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

vs.
MICHAEL J. HEBENSTREIT, Trustee,
Appellee.

1:14-cv-00943-LJM-DKL

ORDER
This appeal from the Bankruptcy Court is from a finding of fact made by the
Bankruptcy Judge with which Appellant Rajwinder Kaur (“Appellant Kaur”) disagrees.
Kaur’s husband Habhupinder Bains (“Bains”) was involved in an automobile accident in
which a passenger was grievously injured.
$400,000.00 in medical expenses.

The passenger incurred more than

Kaur and her husband Bains filed for bankruptcy

protection just prior to the commencement of trial on the complaint filed against Bains by
the injured passenger. Kaur disputes the Bankruptcy Court’s finding that her husband
transferred to her a 51% percent interest in a Cloverdale, Indiana, truck stop and fast food
restaurant after the accident. She maintains that the transfer was made prior to the
accident. The essence of this appeal is Kaur’s insistence that the Bankruptcy Judge’s
finding to the contrary is factually incorrect.
I.

STANDARD

In reviewing a decision of the Bankruptcy Court, this District Court acts an as
appellate tribunal and is governed by traditional standards of appellate review.
Specifically, the Court Ais constrained to accept the [B]ankruptcy [C]ourt's findings of facts

unless they are clearly erroneous.@ In Re Excalibur Auto Corp., 859 F.2d 454, 457, n.3
(7th Cir. 1988).
2013).

See also First Weber Group, Inc. v. Horsfall, 738 F.3d 767, 776 (7th Cir.

AA finding is clearly erroneous if upon review of the entire record the reviewing

court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.@
Graham v. Lennington, 74 B.R. 693, 695 (S.D. Ind. 1987).

AGenerally, as long as the

bankruptcy judge=s inferences are reasonable and supported by the evidence, they will
not be disturbed.@ Id.

The Court “must be especially deferential toward a [bankruptcy]

court’s assessment of witness credibility.”

First Weber Group, 738 F.3d at 776 (citation

omitted).
Conclusions of law made by the Bankruptcy Court, however, must be reviewed de
novo.

See First Weber Group, 738 F.3d at 776; Excalibur Auto Corp., 859 F.2d at 457,

n.3; In Re Bonnett, 895 F.2d 1155, 1157 (7th Cir. 1989).
novo standard to mixed questions of law and fact.

The Court applies the same de

Graham, 74 B.R. at 965. With these

general standards at hand, the issues raised can be addressed.
II.

DISCUSSION

The Bankruptcy Judge was presented with two Stock Transfer Agreements at trial.
Kaur and Bain offered a document entitled “Unrecorded Stock Transfer Agreement,”
which they testified was prepared and notarized March 8, 2008, well before the accident
that precipitated the law suit.

A second Stock Transfer Agreement was presented to the

Court which was recorded and executed on December 15, 2008.

Unfortunately

Appellant Kaur’s only request of this Court is that the evidence be re-weighed and that
her version of the facts be accepted.
2

The Bankruptcy Court’s reasons for discounting the March 8, 2008, alleged
transfer and for crediting the December 15, 2008, transfer as the genuine article are well
set out in his opinion.

Appellee, the Trustee, points to the salient basis of the Bankruptcy

Judge’s opinion which are included herein as follows:
It bears emphasizing that the Court did not find Bains or Kaur to be
particularly credible. Both during trial and in reading the trial transcript, the
Court was struck with how they came to locate CTP [the truckstop/fastfood
restaurant] as an investment, how the purchase and formation of Ashutosh
transpired, and how the purchase was funded. Plus, their respective
testimony as to some of these points differ, sometimes substantially, from
one another. Certainly, their recollections of the CTP Transfer are vague
at best, and their significant memory lapses strike the Court as a rather
convenient way to deflect the Trustee’s allegations.
The Court was also particularly struck by Kaur and Bains’ attempts
to portray themselves as inexperienced, somewhat bumbling, business
people. For two people who have seemingly amazed—at least at times—
significant wealth, who have operated and owned numerous businesses,
and who had access to the assistance of counsel at all times relevant to the
Trustee’s claims, the Court finds their attempts to portray themselves in
such a manner as disingenuous.
Bankr. DKt. No. 122, at 14 n.7.
The Bankruptcy Judge clearly made factual determinations that he used to support
his decision that the transfer to the Kaur occurred after the accident.
decision after considering the credibility of the witnesses.
with the appropriate deference.

He made this

Thus, this Court must review

After review of the record and the Bankruptcy Court’s

factual determinations, this Court cannot conclude that a mistake has been made.
III.

CONCLUSION

This Court concludes that the factual determinations of the Bankruptcy Court are
well supported by the record.

The Bankruptcy Judge supports his reasoning well in the
3

above quoted portion of his opinion.

For these reasons the opinion of the Bankruptcy

Court is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

03/17/2015
DATE: __________________

Distribution attached.
NOTE:

This Order requires paper distribution.
4

Distribution:
RAJWINDER KAUR
3655 Pickwick Circle
Plainfield, IN 46168
Jonathan David Sundheimer
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
[e-mail]
Bruce D. Brattain
BRATTAIN & MINNIX
[e-mail]
John S. Capper, IV
CAPPER TULLEY & REIMONDO
[e-mail]
Christopher M. Trapp
RUBIN & LEVIN PC
342 Massachusetts Avenue
Suite 500
Indianapolis, IN 46204
John M. Rogers
RUBIN & LEVIN PC
[e-mail]
Elliott D. Levin
RUBIN & LEVIN, PC
[e-mail]
Joseph L. Mulvey
RUBIN & LEVIN, PC
[e-mail]
Sarah L. Fowler
RUBIN & LEVIN, PC
[e-mail]

5