In re Rowe

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Apr. 26, 2016)

The bankruptcy court grants the trustee and creditor’s motion to reconsider the Court’s entry of an order of discharge. The court had entered a judgment denying the debtor a discharge for failure to comply with court orders and hindering the trustee’s efforts. The case was closed, and much later the debtor moved to reopen the case to submit her financial management certificate to receive a discharge. The court entered the order of discharge a few days after the certificate was submitted. The court holds that the motion to reconsider was timely and that the record established that the debtor is not entitled to a discharge. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorney for Creditor: Stoll Keenon Ogden, PLLC, Matt Lindblom

Trustee: Gordon A. Rowe, Jr.

Attorney for Debtor: Timothy Denison

2016-04-26 – in re rowe

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Bratt

(6th Cir. B.A.P. Apr. 26, 2016)

The B.A.P. holds that the recently-enacted Tennessee statute setting a higher interest rate for property tax claims in bankruptcy does not in fact determine the interest rate for such a claim in bankruptcy. Here, the property tax claim was oversecured, so interest could be paid on the claim pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 506(b). Sec. 511 provides that the interest rate shall be determined by applicable nonbankruptcy law. The court holds that the Tennessee statute was a “bankruptcy law,” and thus the regular interest rate under Tennessee law applies. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorney for Government: R. Alexander Dickerson

Attorney for Debtor: Alexander Koval

2016-04-26 – in re bratt

Author: Matt Lindblom


In re Willams

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Apr. 22, 2016)

The bankruptcy court denies the U.S. Trustee’s motion to dismiss the Chapter 12 case. The debtors testified at their § 341 meeting of creditors that they had not engaged in a farming operation since two years before the petition was filed and did not intend to return to farming. The court applies the Code’s definition of “family farmer” and first finds that the debtors had engaged in a farming operation even though they contracted with their son to do the physical planting and harvesting of crops. The court also holds that the Code does not require the debtor to be engaged in a farming operation at the time the petition was filed, in part because Chapter 12 permits liquidation of the farming operation. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorney for Debtors: Kerrick Bachert PSC, Scott A. Bachert

Attorney for U.S. Trustee: Tyler Yeager

2016-04-22 – in re williams

Author: Matt Lindblom

Giese v. Community Trust Bank (In re HNRC Dissolution Co.)

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Apr. 15, 2016)

The bankruptcy court dismisses the plaintiff’s complaint because it failed to state a claim. The complaint was based on a factual assertion that the plaintiff’s predecessor had an interest in certain bank account funds. However, the prior 11 U.S.C. § 363 sale order and confirmation order adjudicated otherwise. Thus, the claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorneys for Plaintiff: Philip G. Fairbanks, M. Austin Mehr, John M. Simms

Attorneys for Defendants: Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC, Philip Douglas Barr, Kent Durning, Lea Pauley Goff, Dinsmore and Shohl LLP, Janet Smith Hobrook, Martin B. Tucker, H. Derek Hall

2016-04-15 – in re hnrc dissolution co

Author: Matt Lindblom

Liebzeit v. Intercity State Bank, FSB (In re Blanchard)

(7th Cir. Apr. 14, 2016)

The Seventh Circuit applies Wisconsin state law and holds that a mortgage can attach a lien to a vendor’s interest in a real estate contract and that the lender perfected the lien by recording in the county land records rather than filing a UCC-1 financing statement. The trustee is unable to avoid the lien. Opinion below.

Judge: Hamilton

Attorneys for Trustee: Michael F. Dubis, Christopher R. Schultz

Attorneys for Appellees: Ruffi Law Offices, Sara Lynn Ruffi, Lund Law Office, Brad M. Lund

2016-04-14 – in re blanchard

Author: Matt Lindblom

Direct Capital Corporation v. Steele (In re Steele)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. April 11, 2016)

The bankruptcy court enters judgment in favor of the debtors in this nondischargeability action under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2), (4), and (6). The debtors signed a guaranty on a debt incurred by their business and secured by equipment. The debtors then left the company, and filed their chapter 7 petition. The creditor was unable to locate the collateral and filed this action. Because the debtors signed the guaranty with the appropriate authority, there was no misrepresentation or fraud in the inducement. There was also no evidence to show a fiduciary relationship between the parties, and there were no facts to support a claim of larceny. There was insufficient evidence to show that the debtors’ failure to maintain knowledge of the location of the collateral constituted a willful and malicious injury. Opinion below.

Judge: Lorch

Debtors: Pro Se

Attorney for Creditor: Lohmeyer Law Offices, Steven S. Lohmeyer

2016-04-11 – in re steele

Author: Matt Lindblom

Indiana Department of Workforce Development v. Coulter (In re Coulter)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Apr. 8, 2016)

The bankruptcy court rules that the government’s claim for penalties incurred by the debtor for false representations in unemployment benefit applications are not dischargeable. The debtor conceded that the debt for repayment of benefits was not dischargeable but disputed that the penalties imposed were dischargeable. The court finds that the penalties arose out of the fraudulent representations and thus were not dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2). Opinion below.

Judge: Lorch

Attorney for Plaintiff: Office of the Indiana Attorney General, Maricel E.V. Smiles

Attorney for Debtor: Lloyd E. Koehler

2016-04-08 – in re coulter

Author: Matt Lindblom

Bush v. United States (In re Bush)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Apr. 8, 2016)

The bankruptcy court addresses whether certain tax penalty claims are dischargeable. The court finds certain penalties are dischargeable because they arose out of tax returns filed outside the three-year window provided in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7). However, other penalties were not dischargeable because they arose out of a tax return filed within the three-year window. Opinion below.

Judge: Carr

Attorney for Debtors: Camden & Meridew, P.C., Julie A. Camden

Attorneys for Defendant: U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division, Sarah Thomas Mayhew, Peter Sklarew

2016-04-08 – in re bush

Author: Matt Lindblom

Gandy v. Schuchardt (In re Gandy)

(Sixth Circuit Apr. 7, 2016)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s judgment denying the debtor a discharge. The debtor made conflicting statements regarding his marital status and annual income in various filings. The creditor repeatedly objected, and then filed an action to deny the debtor a discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4). The court holds that the finding of the requisite intent was supported by the fact that the debtor relied on his false statements despite the creditor’s objections, and amended the filings only after the creditor filed the nondischargeability action. Opinion below.

Judge: Gibbons

Attorney for Debtor: John P. Newton

Creditor: Pro Se

2016-04-07 – in re gandy

Author: Matt Lindblom

Hollowell v. Chase Home Finance

(N.D. Ind. Apr. 5, 2016)

The district court grants the defendants’ motion to dismiss the appeal for being untimely. The debtor filed his notice of appeal outside the 14-day period. Upon the defendants’ motion to dismiss the appeal, the debtor filed a motion to extend the deadline to file the notice of appeal, but that motion was also untimely. Opinion below.

Judge: Simon

Debtor: Pro Se

Attorneys for Defendants: Dykema Gossett PLLC, Louis S. Chronowski, Maria A. Diakoumakis

2016-04-05 – hollowell v chase home finance

Author: Matt Lindblom