Kendrick v. Rister (In re Rister)

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. May 18, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in this vehicle lien avoidance action. The debtor entered into a sale contract for purchase of the vehicle on the day before the petition was filed, but the certificate of title was not transferred to the debtor until after the petition was filed. Accordingly, the court finds that the vehicle is not property of the estate and the complaint should be dismissed. The court permits the trustee a period of time in which to file an amended complaint based on the trustee’s assertion that the estate may include rights under the sale contract. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorney for Trustee: Michael B. Baker

Attorneys for Defendants: Steiden Law Offices, Eric A. Steiden; Frost Brown Todd LLC, Paige Leigh Ellerman, Adam J. Webb; Aaron J. Nash; Patricia L. Johsnon

2017-05-18 – in re rister

Author: Matt Lindblom

Edmondson v. Gordon (In re Gordon)

(6th Cir. B.A.P. May 18, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s contempt order, but remands the matter for the limited purpose of providing the debtor sufficient notice and an opportunity to be heard on the issue of whether monetary sanctions were reasonable. The debtor sold property of the estate in direct violation of the bankruptcy court’s order. The bankruptcy court held the debtor in contempt and awarded the trustee his attorney fees as a sanction. However, the hearing notice for the contempt order did not make clear that monetary sanctions could be entered against the pro se debtor. Opinion below.

Judge: Opperman

Appellant: Pro Se

Attorney for Appellee: Thompson Burton PLLC, Phillip G. Young, Jr.

2017-05-18 – in re gordon

Author: Matt Lindblom

Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson

(U.S. Sup. Ct. May 15, 2017)

The Supreme Court holds that a creditor did not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when it filed a proof of claim on a debt that was barred from collection by the applicable statute of limitations. The proof of claim made clear that the limitations period had passed. The decision resolves a split among the circuits on the question of whether such a filing constituted “false,” “deceptive,” “misleading,” “unconscionable,” or “unfair” conduct under the act. The court reasons that while the claim may not be enforceable, it is nevertheless a “claim” under the bankruptcy code. It is not a false or misleading statement, but it can be disallowed based on its unenforceability. Similarly, the court reasons that the filing was not unconscionable or unfair, as there are protections built into the bankruptcy process that minimize risk to the debtor. Opinion below.

Justice Breyer

2017-05-15 – in re midland funding

Author: Matt Lindblom

Stroud v. Parker (In re Parker)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. May 12, 2017)

The bankruptcy court enters summary judgment against the debtor holding the debt nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4). The plaintiffs inherited a judgment against the debtor that was based on the debtor’s theft of the decedent’s property. The plaintiffs were the proper parties to bring the claim, as the decedent’s estate assigned the judgment to them, and the requirements of § 523(a)(4) were satisfied. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Crain – Schuette Attorneys, Amanda Lisenby Blakeman

Attorney for Debtor: Alicia C. Johnson

2017-05-12 – in re parker

Author: Matt Lindblom

Nicholson v. Hyundai Capital America, Inc.

(W.D. Ky. May 2, 2017)

The district court denies the debtor’s motion to withdraw the referral of one count of her complaint to the bankruptcy court. The defendant had filed a motion with the bankruptcy court seeking to have the count dismissed because it was not a core claim. The debtor then sought an order withdrawing the reference to avoid litigating the jurisdictional question. The district court declines to grant the motion, stating that the bankruptcy court should rule on the motion to dismiss, as it has jurisdiction to consider the issue presented with the motion. Opinion below.

Judge: Russell

Attorneys for Plaintiff/Debtor: Whitford & Neuhauser, Ross B. Neuhauser

Attorneys for Defendants: Reimer Law Co., Dennis Mark Ostrowski; Smith, Rolfes & Skavdahl, Co., LPA, Neil P. Baine

2017-05-02 – in re nicholson

Author: Matt Lindblom

Town Center Flats, LLC v. ECP Commercial II LLC (In re Town Center Flats, LLC)

(6th Cir. May 2, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit reverses the bankruptcy court, finding that the assignment of rents acted as a complete transfer of ownership and the assignor did not retain any interest in the rents. The court analyzes Michigan law on such assignments and concludes that because the debtor/assignor had no rights in the rents assigned, they were not property of the bankruptcy estate. Opinion below.

Judge: Stranch

Attorney for Appellant: Robert N. Bassel

Attorney for Appellee: Jeremy S. Friedberg

2017-05-02 – in re town center flats

Author: Matt Lindblom

Harper v. The Oversight Committee (In re Conco, Inc.)

(6th Cir. April 28, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the district court and the bankruptcy court, holding that the sale of certain equity interests in the debtor to third parties was prohibited by the confirmed Chapter 11 plan. While the plan was silent as to such sales, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion when interpreting the plan and considering the intent of the parties based on the negotiations that resulted in the final confirmed plan. Opinion below.

Judge: Donald

Attorneys for Appellants: Frost Brown Todd, Edward Michael King, John Scott Egan, Cory J. Skolnick; Hahn & Hessen, Gilbert Backenroth; Kaplan & Partners, David S. Kaplan, Casey Leigh Hinkle

Attorneys for Appellee: Bingham Greenbaum Doll, John K. Bush, Claude R. Bowles, Jr., James R. Irving; Seiller Waterman, Neil C. Bordy, Glenn Alan Cohen, Keith James Larson

2017-04-28 – in re conco

District Court Opinion

Bankruptcy Court Opinion

Author: Matt Lindblom