The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has denied a request from Carole D. King for attorney fees related to her bankruptcy case against Wolverine Endeavors VIII, LLC. The court ruled that King did not provide sufficient evidence to support her claim for fees following an appeal that had previously affirmed the dismissal of an involuntary bankruptcy petition against her. This decision impacts King and her estate, as it affects their financial recovery in the ongoing legal battle.
The case, titled In Re: King v. Wolverine Endeavors VIII, LLC, was filed under docket number 25-1143 on October 21, 2026. The dispute arose after Wolverine Endeavors VIII, LLC, sought to initiate an involuntary bankruptcy against King. The bankruptcy court dismissed this petition, a decision that Wolverine appealed to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP). The BAP affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling, leading King to seek attorney fees for her defense in the appeal.
In the original bankruptcy proceedings, King was represented by an attorney, and the appeal to the BAP was a crucial moment in her case. The BAP's decision to uphold the dismissal of the involuntary bankruptcy petition was a significant victory for King. However, her subsequent request for attorney fees was denied, leading to the current appeal in the Ninth Circuit.
In the Ninth Circuit, Wolverine Endeavors VIII, LLC argued for the dismissal of King's appeal, claiming that she had not filed a proper notice of appeal. They contended that her counsel lacked the authorization to file the appeal. However, the court found these allegations to be unsubstantiated, stating, "As there is no similar uncontradicted evidence that King’s counsel was unauthorized to file, and because the authority Wolverine cites does nothing to advance its position, the motion to dismiss is DENIED." This ruling allowed King's appeal to proceed.
The court then reviewed the merits of King's request for attorney fees. They noted that the only authority for awarding discretionary appellate fees in bankruptcy appeals is found in Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. The court referenced a previous case, Higgins v. Vortex Fishing Systems, Inc., which established that a debtor must demonstrate that an appeal was frivolous to be entitled to attorney fees. The Ninth Circuit stated, "Because King’s opening brief affirmatively states that she is ‘not seeking appellate-level fees on the grounds that Wolverine’s appeal was frivolous’ under Rule 38, she has waived any claim to fees under that Rule." This statement clarified that King's failure to assert that Wolverine's appeal was frivolous meant she could not claim the fees she sought.
The court's ruling has significant implications for King and her estate. By denying her request for attorney fees, the Ninth Circuit effectively upheld the BAP's decision, which may limit King's ability to recover costs associated with her legal defense. This outcome may also influence future bankruptcy cases, particularly those involving disputes over attorney fees in appeals.
Looking ahead, it is unclear whether King will seek further legal options following this decision. The court filing did not specify if there are any related cases pending or if King plans to appeal this ruling. However, the mention of a pending petition for rehearing en banc suggests that there may still be avenues for King to pursue in her ongoing legal battle.
In conclusion, the Ninth Circuit's decision to deny attorney fees to Carole D. King in her bankruptcy case against Wolverine Endeavors VIII, LLC, highlights the complexities of bankruptcy law and the challenges faced by debtors in securing legal costs in appeals. As the case continues to unfold, the implications of this ruling will likely resonate within the legal community and among those involved in bankruptcy proceedings.