In re Lexington Hospitality Group, LLC

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Sep. 15, 2017)

The bankruptcy court denies the lender’s motion to dismiss the Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The lender argued that the party signing the debtor’s petition did not have the requisite authority to commence a bankruptcy case for the debtor. The bankruptcy court finds that amendments to the debtor’s operating agreement were made for the sole purpose of eliminating the debtor’s ability to file for bankruptcy without the lender’s consent. The court finds this violates Federal public policy and the provisions are unenforceable. Opinion below.

Judge: Schaaf

Attorneys for Debtor: Laura Day DelCotto, Jamie L. Harris, Sara A. Johnston, DelCotto Law Group PLLC

Attorneys for Creditor: Martin B. Tucker, Sarah S. Mattingly, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP

2017-09-15 – in re lexington hospitality group

Author: Matt Lindblom

Brooks v. Key Bank (In re Brooks

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Sep. 14, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the university’s motion for summary judgment, determining that the student loan debt is nondischargeable. The debtor filed the adversary proceeding alleging repayment would present an undue hardship. The debtor did not respond to the university’s motion and failed to present any evidence to satisfy the Brunner test. Opinion below.

Judge: Carr

Attorney for Debtor: Eric C. Redman, Redman Ludwig PC

Attorney for University: Constantine Alexander Hortis, Maryland Attorney General

2017-09-14 – in re brooks

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Melcher

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

The bankruptcy court grants the creditor’s motion to dismiss the Chapter 7 case because the debtor failed to rebut the “presumption of abuse.” The debtor argued she should be permitted to file under Chapter 7 because of special circumstances, pursuant to § 707(b)(2)(B). The debtor argued that she was a “stockbroker” and thus not eligible for Chapter 11 or 13. However, the court determines that she is not a stockbroker because she is merely an employee, rather than a stockbroker as defined by § 101. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorney for Debtor: Stuart P. Brown

Attorney for Creditor: Nicholas A. Zingarelli

2017-09-08 – in re melcher

Author: Matt Lindblom

Gargula v. Cox (In re Cox)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Sep. 7, 2017)

The bankruptcy court enters judgment in favor of the debtor, granting a discharge in her bankruptcy case. The U.S. Trustee brought the action under § 727(a)(2)(B) and (a)(4)(A), alleging the debtor intentionally failed to disclose $5,000 she held in a lockbox on the petition date. The Court finds the debtor did not have the requisite intent and was unsure of what she was supposed to do at the 341 meeting based on a misunderstanding or miscommunication with her lawyer. Opinion below.

Judge: Carr

Attorney for U.S. Trustee: Jeanette Eisan Hinshaw

Attorney for Debtor: Joseph L. Mulvey

2017-09-07 – in re cox

Author: Matt Lindblom

 

Haire v. Padgett (In re Padgett)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Sep. 1, 2017)

The bankruptcy court finds in favor of the debtor in this nondischargeability action. The creditor’s claim was based on missing restaurant equipment following the termination of a real property lease to the debtor. The court finds the creditor failed to present evidence establishing that the debtor was responsible for the loss. The elements of §§ 523(a)(2), (4), and (6) were not satisfied. Opinion below.

Judge: Fulton

Attorneys for Debtor: Farmer & Wright, PLLC, Todd A. Farmer

Attorney for Creditor: Steve Vidmer

2017-09-01 – in re padgett

Author: Matt Lindblom

 

Sunshine Heifers, LLC v. Citizens First Bank (In re Purdy)

(6th Cir. Aug. 31, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s decision finding the bank had a superior interest in the proceeds of an auction of the debtor’s cattle. The appellant contended its interest as lessor was superior and that the Sixth Circuit had already determined it was entitled to the proceeds. The bankruptcy did not err in determining ownership of the cattle at the time of the auction after the prior remand. Opinion below.

Judge: Moore

Attorneys for Appellant: Keller & Almassian, Michael D. Almassian, Nicholas S. Laue

Attorneys for Bank: Kerrick Bachert PSC, Scott A. Bachert, Ashley D. Gerughty

2017-08-31 – in re purdy

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Penick

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Aug. 28, 2017)

The bankruptcy court denies confirmation of the debtors’ proposed Chapter 12 plan. The court first determines that the debtors’ timber operations constitute a “farming operation” under § 101(21). Those operations are ongoing rather than a single cut of all timber at one time. The debtors are eligible to proceed under Chapter 12. However, the debtors failed to provide sufficient evidence that the proposed plan was feasible. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorney for Debtors: Michael L. Baker

Attorneys for Creditor: Morgan & Pottinger, Scott T. Rickman

2017-08-28 – in re penick

Author: Matt Lindblom