Camofi Master LDC v. Spradlin

(E.D. Ky. Oct. 6, 2017)

The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s order granting the trustee’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The trustee has the exclusive right to pursue claims asserted in the complaint. The appellant’s arguments that the lawsuits were distinct are rejected. If the appellant and trustee could both pursue the claims there would be a significant chance of a double recovery. Opinion below.

Judge: Wilhoit

Attorneys for Appellants: Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, LLP, Casey M. Cantrell-Swartz, W. Timothy Miller; Akin Gump Strauss Huaer & Feld LLP, Douglas A. Rapp sport, Robert J. Boller

Attorneys for Appellees: Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP, Daniel J. Donnellon; Foley & Lardner, LLP, David B. Goroff, Geoffrey S. Goodman; Barber Law PLLC, T. Kent Barber; Luskin, Stern & Eisner LLP, Michael Luskin; Fowler Bell PLLC, Taft A. McKinstry

2017-10-06 – in re camofi master and camhzn master

Author: Matt Lindblom

Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld (In re Rosenfeld

(6th Cir. Oct. 6, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the 11 U.S.C. § 727 complaint. The plaintiff is the debtor’s ex-husband. The court holds that the plaintiff does not have standing to bring the complaint. The only debt owed to him was already nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15) because it was incurred in connection with a divorce decree. Opinion below.

Judge: Bush

Attorney for Appellant: Kenneth R. Beams

Appellee: Pro Se

2017-10-06 – in re rosenfeld

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re VanWinkle

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Oct. 4, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants in part the debtor’s motion to avoid a judicial lien on two parcels of real property. Applying the formula in 11 U.S.C. § 522(f), the court determines that the debtor’s exemption is impaired with respect to one parcel but not the other. Opinion below.

Judge: Schaaf

Attorneys for Debtor: Michael B. Baker, James R. Westenhoefer

Attorneys for Creditor: DelCotto Law Group PLLC, Sara A. Johnston

2017-10-04 – in re vanwinkle

Author: Matt Lindblom

East Cost Miner, LLC v. Nixon Peabody, LLP

(E.D. Ky. Oct. 3, 2017)

The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s interpretation of a final cash collateral order, holding the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in finding a carve-out for payment of professional fees included prepetition collateral of the lenders. The text of the order along with a review of the case record made clear that the parties had agreed the prepetition collateral was included. $2.4 million in fees were awarded. Opinion below.

Judge: Wilhoit

Attorneys for Appellants: Luskin, Stern & Eifler LLP, Alex Talesnick, Michael Luskin; Fowler Bell PLLC, Matthew David Ellison, Taft A. McKinstry

Attorneys for Appellees: Nixon Peabody LLP, Christopher M. Desiderio, Dennis J. Drebsky; Amelia Martin Adams, Laura Day DelCotto; Squire Patton Boggs, Eliot M. Smith, Stephen D. Lerner; Foley & Lardner, LLP, David B. Goroff, Edward J. Green, Geoffrey S. Goodman; T. Kent Barber; John L. Daughtery; Rachelle Cathleen Dodson; Phaedra Spradlin

2017-10-03 – in re east coast miner

Author: Matt Lindblom

Feldman v. Pearl (In re Pearl)

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Sep. 29, 2017)

The bankruptcy court enters judgment in favor of the debtor in this nondischargeability action. The plaintiff sought a judgment under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2), (4), and (6). The plaintiff alleged that the debtor wrongfully received distributions from the business entity controlled jointly by the debtor and the plaintiff. The court finds the plaintiff failed to present evidence sufficient to support the claims under § 523. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorneys for Plaintiff: Michael B. Baker, William R. O’Bryan, Jr.

Attorney for Defendant: Stuart P. Brown

2017-09-29 – in re pearl

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Morris

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Sep. 28, 2017)

The bankruptcy court holds that the creditor’s lien is a judicial lien subject to avoidance under § 522(f) rather than a statutory lien. The creditor properly recorded a mechanic’s lien against the debtor’s property, and then filed suit prior to the one-year period expiring after the filing. However, the complaint filed sought a judgment for breach of contract rather than enforcement of the mechanic’s lien. The creditor then recorded a judgment lien following entry of a default judgment. The bankruptcy court concludes that the statutory process for perfecting the mechanic’s lien was not followed—the mechanic’s lien dissolved after the one-year period and the creditor held only a judicial lien at the time the bankruptcy petition was filed. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorney for Debtor: Allan E. Dunaway

Attorney for Creditor: Stiller Waterman LLC, David M. Cantor

2017-09-28 – in re morris

Author: Matt Lindblom

McKay v. City of Detroit, Michigan (In re City of Detroit)

(6th Cir. Sep. 28, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s interpretation of the creditor’s settlement agreement with the debtor. The agreement provided that the creditor released his claims against the city and the individual officers. The plan only provided for a small percentage to be paid on the claim, but stated claims against individual officers were not discharged by the plan. The creditor argued the settlement agreement should not be held to have released claims against the individual officers, but the court finds the plain language of the agreement makes clear such claims were released. Opinion below.

Judge: Sutton

Attorney for Creditor: Eric Stempien

Attorney for Debtor: Miller Canfield Paddock & Stone, Marc N. Swanson, Ronald A. Spinner

2017-09-28 – in re city of detroit

Author: Matt Lindblom