Spradlin v. Pryor Cashman (In re Licking River Mining, LLC)

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Mar. 24, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants in part and denies in part the defendant’s motion to dismiss in this fraudulent and preferential transfer avoidance action. The trustee’s amended complaint failed to state claims based on certain transfers, but did state a preferential transfer claim.

Judge: Wise

Attorneys for Trustee: Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP, Claude R.Bowles, Jr., Daniel J. Donnellon, Alex S. Rodger

Attorneys for Defendant: Ross M. Bagley, Gideon Cashman, Eric M. Fishman, Adam R. Kegley

2017-03-24 – in re licking river mining

Author: Matt Lindblom

Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp.

(U.S. Sup. Ct. Mar. 22, 2017)

The Supreme Court holds that a distribution scheme ordered by the bankruptcy court as part of a dismissal of a Chapter 11 case (i.e., a “structured dismissal”) cannot deviate from the basic priority rules in the bankruptcy code, without the consent of affected parties. The Court recognizes that the code gives a bankruptcy court the power to dismiss a Chapter 11 case, but there is no statutory language that supports a dismissal that includes nonconsensual priority-violating distributions of estate value. The Court further holds that there cannot even be a “rare case” exception where such structured dismissals would be appropriate. Opinion below.

Justice: Breyer

2017-03-22 – czyzewski v jevic holding corp

Author: Matt Lindblom

Friedmeyer v. Breath of Life O2, LLC (In re Breath of Life Home Medical Equipment and Respiratory Services, Inc.)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Mar. 20, 2017)

The bankruptcy court denies the defendants’ motion to dismiss, with the exception of one claim for equitable subordination against one of the defendants. The complaint filed by the trustee asserted counts for veil piercing, fraud and fraudulent transfer, preference avoidance, breach of fiduciary duty, and a demand for accounting and turnover. Opinion below.

Judge: Moberly

Attorney for Trustee: Mark A. Warsco

Attorneys for Defendants: Alerding Castor Hewitt LLP, Michael J. Alerding, Julia E. Dimick, Mitchell Alan Greene, Anthony Frederick Roach; Abraham Murphy

2017-03-20 – in re breath of life home medical

Author: Matt Lindblom

Brown v. Ellmann (In re Brown)

(6th Cir. Mar. 20, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s order denying the debtor’s claim for an exemption under 11 U.S.C. § 522(d). The real property was fully encumbered by secured claims and thus the debtor had no equity in the property. The court applies its prior decision in In re Baldridge. The trustee also argued that the debtor’s appeal was moot under 11 U.S.C. § 363(m) and other authority but failed to meet the trustee’s burden on the issue. Opinion below.

Judge: Merritt

Attorney for Debtor: Gary Boren

Trustee: Douglas Stanley Ellmann

2017-03-20 – in re brown

Author: Matt Lindblom

Netzer v. Office of Lawyer Regulation

(7th Cir. Mar. 13, 2017)

The Seventh Circuit affirms the district court’s dismissal of the appeal. The debtor failed to appeal the bankruptcy court’s order within the 14-day period set forth in Bankruptcy Rule 8002(a)(1). The court discusses authority holding that courts do not have equitable powers to contradict bankruptcy statutes and rules. Opinion below.

Judge: Easterbrook

Attorney for Debtor: Randy Joseph Netzer

Attorney for Appellee: Sean Michael Murphy

2017-03-13 – in re netzer

Author: Matt Lindblom

Stein v. Stubbs (In re Stubbs)

(6th Cir. B.A.P. Mar. 9, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. vacates the bankruptcy court’s orders denying the trustee’s motion for default judgment in the action to revoke the debtor’s discharge. The debtor failed to comply with the court’s order to provide the trustee a copy of her tax return when filed. The appellate court finds the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in denying the trustee’s motion for default judgment where the debtor was properly served with the action and there was no evidence the debtor was not aware of the bankruptcy court’s clear order on the issue. Opinion below.

Judge: Humphrey

Trustee: Sheldon Stein

2017-03-09 – in re stubbs

Author: Matt Lindblom

Spearman v. Commonwealth Credit Union

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Mar. 9, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants summary judgment in favor of the creditor in this adversary proceeding in which the debtor alleged violations of the automatic stay and claims under the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act. The court holds that the creditor bank’s restriction of the debtor’s electronic privileges with respect to her accounts did not violate the automatic stay. Opinion below.

Judge: Stout

Attorney for Debtor: Ross Benjamin Neuhauser

Attorney for Creditor: Christopher M. Hill

2017-03-09 – in re spearman

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Buckman

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Mar. 9, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the secured creditor’s motion for stay relief because it was inadequately protected as a result of there being insufficient funds to make the first payment to the creditor under the confirmed Chapter 12 plan. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Atttorneys for the Debtor: Kaplan & Partners LLP, James Edwin McGhee, III, Charity Bird Neukomm

Attorneys for Creditor:  Andrews Law Firm, PLLC, Ashley Sanders Cox

2017-03-09 – in re buckman

Author: Matt Lindblom

Feldman v. Pearl (In re Pearl)

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Mar. 8, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the creditor’s motion to dismiss the debtor’s counterclaim in this nondischargeability action. The debtor failed to state a claim for conversion under Kentucky law. The debtor also failed to state claims under Kentucky’s statutes governing corporations, derivative actions, and shareholder claims. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorney for Debtor: Stuart P. Brown

Attorney for Creditor: Michael L. Baker

2017-03-08 – in re pearl

Author: Matt Lindblom

 

 

Halifax Financial Group L.P. v. Hazel (In re Hazel)

(S.D. Ind. Feb. 27, 2017)

The district court dismisses the appeal because the bankruptcy court’s order was not final and appealable. The creditor had filed an emergency motion for stay relief to proceed with acquiring title to the debtor’s real property through Indiana’s tax sale and tax deed procedures. The bankruptcy court denied the motion without prejudice. The district court holds that the bankruptcy court’s order was not final, in part because it was without prejudice and appeared to be a preliminary decision. Opinion below.

Judge: Young

Attorneys for Creditor: Harrison & Moberly, David J. Theising

Attorneys for Debtor: Tom Scott & Associates, PC, Jess M. Smith, III

2017-02-27-in-re-hazel

Author: Matt Lindblom