Siragusa v. Collazo (In re Collazo)

(7th Cir. Apr. 5, 2016)

The Seventh Circuit affirms the decision of the bankruptcy court dismissing some of the creditors’ nondischargeability claims because the claims were based on alleged fraud occurring outside the applicable Illinois five-year limitations period. The court reverses the dismissal of one of the claims because it was not clear that the creditor had notice of the fraud to start the limitations period. The court also remands so that a money judgment can be entered, as the bankruptcy court’s concerns that it did not have jurisdiction to do so were addressed in the Supreme Court’s Wellness and Arkison decisions. Opinion below.

Judge: Posner

Attorney for Debtor: David Robert Herzog

Attorney for Creditors: Patrick Gerard Cooke

2016-04-05 – in re collazo

Author: Matt Lindblom

Tomlin v. Bank of New York Mellon (In re Tomlin)

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Mar. 31, 2016)

The bankruptcy court grants in part and denies in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. The debtor asserted numerous claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and related state law causes of action in his complaint. The court finds the debtor does not have standing to assert certain claims under FCRA. The court also addresses issues of preemption under FCRA and various statutes of limitations. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Debtor: Pro Se

Attorneys for Defendants: Christopher M. Hill, Frost Brown Todd LLC, Patricia K. Burgess, Stephanie Smiley

2016-03-31 – in re tomlin

Author: Matt Lindblom

Kentucky Employees Retirement System v. Seven Counties Services, Inc.

(W.D. Ky. Mar. 31, 2016)

The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s decision finding that Seven Counties Services, Inc. was permitted to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy relief because it was not a “governmental unit” as defined in the bankruptcy code. Further, the debtor’s contract with KERS was properly deemed an executory contract that could be rejected by the debtor. The court makes one factual correction to the record, but the bankruptcy court’s decision is affirmed in all other respects. Opinion below.

Judge: Hale

Attorneys for KERS: Ice Miller LLP, Daniel R. Swetnam, Tyson A. Crist, Victoria E. Powers

Attorneys for Debtor: Seiller Waterman, LLC, David Cantor, Tyler R. Yeager, Gray & White, Paul Joseph Hershberg, Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP, Philip C. Eschels, Wyatt Tarrant & Combs LLP, Theodore T. Myre, Jr.

2016-03-31 – kers v seven counties services

Author: Matt Lindblom

Woodson v. Ausmus

(W.D. Ky. Mar. 31, 2016)

The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s decision to bar the creditor’s nondischargeability claims for being untimely. The bankruptcy notice set forth the applicable bar date for assertion of such claims, based on the first scheduled meeting of creditors. The case was then repeatedly dismissed for failure to file schedules and reinstated on motions of the debtor. While the meeting of creditors was rescheduled and continued, no changes were made to the initial bar date for nondischargeability claims. The court enforces the deadline and declines to exercise its equitable powers under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) to revoke the discharge. Opinion below.

Judge: Stivers

Attorney for Debtors: Whitford & Neuhauser, Ross B. Neuhauser

Attorney for Creditor: Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, James L. Adams

2016-03-31 – woodson v ausmus

Author: Matt Lindblom

Levin v. Verizon Business Global, LLC (In re Onestar Long Distance, Inc.)

(S.D. Ind. Mar. 28, 2016)

The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s judgment that found the creditor established a new value defense to the trustee’s preference claim. The debtor made payments to the creditor on a promissory note during the preference period. The creditor continued to provide services to the debtor during the preference period, and it billed for those services on a monthly basis. The total value of the services exceeded the debtor’s payments. The court holds that the bankruptcy court correctly applied the per diem method of allocation of new value credit under the facts of this case, and the new value defense applied. Opinion below.

Judge: Young

Attorneys for Trustee: Kilpatrick Stockton LLP, Colin M. Bernadino, Michael D. Langford, Todd C. Meyers, Rubin & Levin, P.C., Elliott D. Levin, James T. Young

Attorneys for Creditor: Stinson Morrison Hecker LLP, Mark S. Carder, Bingham McHale LLP, Thomas C. Scherer

2016-03-28 – in re onestar long distance

Author: Matt Lindblom

Gaft v. Sheidler (In re Sheidler)

(6th Cir. B.A.P. Mar. 28, 2016)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing the plaintiffs’ nondischargeability complaint. The plaintiffs had suffered a loss when they purchased a condominium unit and hired a builder to complete its construction. The builder accepted funds but failed to complete the work. Each of the plaintiffs’ claims under 11 U.S.C. § 523 were properly dismissed, principally because they failed to establish that the builder was the debtors’ agent. Opinion below.

Judge: Harrison

Attorneys for Creditors: Daniel P. Feinberg, William Z. Kolobaric

Attorneys for Debtors: Michigan Legal Group, Sean M. Liles

2016-03-28 – in re sheidler

Author: Matt Lindblom

Leonard v. RDLG, LLC (In re Leonard)

(6th Cir. Mar. 28, 2016)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the order granting summary judgment to the creditor, finding a debt nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). Summary judgment was appropriate because the debtor was collaterally estopped from defending against the fraud claim. The creditor had obtained a default judgment against the debtor, post-petition, in another court as a sanction. The court holds that the entry of the default judgment was not a violation of the automatic stay. Opinion below.

Judge: Boggs

Attorney for Debtor: Jonathan Rudman Bunn

Attorney for Creditor: Rayburn, Cooper & Durham, Ross R. Fulton, David J. Fulton

2016-03-28 – in re leonard

Author: Matt Lindblom