In re Thornton

In re Thornton

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. May 23, 2016)

The bankruptcy court sustains the creditor’s objection to the proposed Chapter 13 plan, finding the creditor’s expert more credible than the debtor’s expert as to valuation of the debtor’s mobile home. Thus, the the creditor’s secured claim was higher than the amount provided for in the plan. The court also holds that certain of the appliances in the home are not accessions and thus are not subject to the creditor’s lien. Opinion below.

Judge: Moberly

Attorney for Debtors: Albright and Albright, Attorneys at Law, Jonathan Lamoin Albright, Jr.

Attorney for Creditor: Timothy J. O’Connor

2016-05-23 – in re thornton

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Isaacs

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. May 19, 2016)

The bankruptcy court grants summary judgment in favor of the debtor, holding a mortgage debt had been discharged in the Chapter 7 and the recording of the mortgage and foreclosure action constituted a violation of the automatic stay and the discharge injunction. The mortgagee had failed to record the mortgage prepetition, and it contained a provision that stated the lien did not attach until recorded. The court rejects the creditor’s argument that an equitable lien arose, in part because the creditor had control over attachment and simply failed to record for approximately one year before the bankruptcy was filed. The court also rejects the creditor’s argument that the post-bankruptcy state court foreclosure judgment could not be disturbed under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Opinion below.

Judge: Fulton

Attorney for Debtor: Marcus H. Herbert

Attorneys for Creditor: David C. Nalley, Gregory A. Stout

2016-05-19 – in re isaacs

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Polly

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. May 17, 2016)

The debtor sustains, in part, the debtors’ objection to the creditor’s notice of post-petition mortgage fees, expenses and charges. The debtor contended the following fees were unreasonable: $500 for an objection to the debtor’s plan, $100 for the filing of the notice, and $650 for the preparation and filing of a proof of claim. The creditor submitted an affidavit of its counsel detailing the tasks completed for the case. However, the affidavit failed to allocate specific amounts of time to each task. Thus, the Court reduces the proof of claim fee to $200, finds the other fees are reasonable, and allows the creditor’s claim in the amount of $800. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorneys for Debtors: Kruger & Schwartz, Richard A. Schwartz

Attorneys for Creditor: Lerner, Sampson & Rothfuss, LPA, Kerry Nunley Bruckner

2016-05-17 – in re polly

Author: Matt Lindblom

Huskey International Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz

(U.S. Sup. Ct. May 16, 2016)

The Supreme Court resolves a split among the circuits as to whether 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), which in part excepts from discharge debts obtained by actual fraud, requires a false representation to a creditor or is applicable to other forms of fraud that do not require a false representation. The Court holds that a false representation is not required. The debtor caused an entity he controlled to transfer funds to other debtor-controlled entities while the transferor entity owed a significant debt to the creditor. The Court explains that “actual” in “actual fraud” means the fraud must be fraud that is not merely implied fraud or fraud in law. “Fraud” has historically encompassed a broad variety of activities, including the transfer of assets that hinders a creditor’s ability to collect a debt. The debtor argued that a narrower interpretation should be applied because the broader interpretation created overlap with other dischargeability provisions. The debtor also argued that effecting a fraudulent conveyance does not cause the debtor to “obtain” a debt and thus the narrower interpretation is correct. The Court rejects both arguments, based largely on statutory construction, and remands for a determination of whether the debtor here “obtained” a debt because it owned interests in the entities receiving the fraudulent conveyances. The dissent is consistent with the debtor’s argument that a fraudulent conveyance does not cause the transferor to obtain debt by actual fraud. Opinion below.

Majority Opinion: Justice Sotomayor

Dissenting Opinion: Justice Thomas

2016-05-16 – huskey international electronics v ritz

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Tench

(6th Cir. B.A.P. May 11, 2016)

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reverses the bankruptcy court’s order allowing the unsecured creditor’s late-filed claim in this Chapter 13 case. The creditor filed its claim eight days after the bar date, and the bankruptcy court allowed the claim based on excusable neglect. The B.A.P. holds that a bankruptcy court does not have authority to extend the deadline in Rule 3002(c) through equitable powers or the doctrine of equitable tolling. Opinion below.

Judge: Humphrey

Attorneys for Creditor: Gingo Palumbo Law Group LLC, Anthony J. Gingo, Michael J. Palumbo

Attorneys for Debtor: Luftman, Heck & Associates, LLP, Matthew L. Alden

2016-05-11 – in re tench

Author: Matt Lindblom

Camofi Master LDC v. U.S. Coal Corp. (In re Licking River Mining, LLC)

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. May 9, 2016)

The bankruptcy court grants the trustee’s motion to dismiss the creditors’ adversary proceeding. The claims asserted by the creditors were property of the estate and thus the trustee has the exclusive right to assert the claims. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorneys for Trustee: Foley & Lardner LLP, Geoffrey S. Goodman, David B. Goroff

Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Akin Gump Strauss  Hauer & Feld LLP, Robert J. Boller, Douglas A. Rappaport, Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Casey M. Cantrell Swartz, W. Timothy Miller

Attorneys for Defendants: Nixon Peabody LLP, Dennis J. Drebsky, Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP, Daniel J. Donnellon, James R. Irving, Luskin Stern & Eisler LLP, Michael Luskin

2016-05-09 – in re licking river mining

Author: Matt Lindblom