Renner v. U.S. Bank National Association (In re Renner)

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

The bankruptcy court dismisses the debtor’s complaint against the lender, which asserted claims related to the lender’s foreclosure of its mortgage lien in state court. The court dismisses the stay violation claim, because the property was not property of the estate at the time of the alleged acts, and dismisses the remaining claims because the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Opinion below.

Judge: Carr

Attorney for Debtor: Sawin, Shea & Des Jardines LLC, J. Andrew Sawin

Attorneys for Defendant: Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Tammara Danielle Porter

2017-10-20 – in re renner

Author: Matt Lindblom

Harlan v. Nebraska Alliance Realty Company (In re Harlan)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Oct. 19, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants summary judgment in favor of the county in this § 542 turnover action. The case involves a matter of first impression regarding a Chapter 13 debtor’s rights in the tax surplus fund provided for in Ind. Code § 6-1.1-24-7. The court determines the debtor had two options as of the petition date: (1) exercise the right of redemption by the statutory deadline or (2) allow the redemption period to expire, divest herself of the property, and then make a claim against the tax surplus fund. As of the petition date, the debtor only holds a contingent interest in the tax surplus fund, and thus an order directing turnover of the fund is inappropriate. Opinion below.

Judge: Moberly

Attorney for Debtor: Steven P. Taylor

Attorney for Defendants: Scott R. Richards, Katherine A. Starks; Douglas J. DeGlopper

2017-10-19 – in re harlan

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Lynn

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Oct. 16, 2017)

The bankruptcy court overrules the Chapter 7 trustee’s objection to the debtor’s claimed exemption. The debtor moved to reopen her case, add a personal injury cause of action to her schedules, and claim an exemption in a portion of the recovery on the cause of action. The court holds that Law v. Siegel is applicable, and thus the court does not have authority to deny the exemption even if bad faith exists. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorney for Debtor: Darren K. Mexic

Trustee: Jerry Burns

2017-10-16 – in re lynn

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Witham

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Oct. 12, 2017)

The bankruptcy court awards damages to the debtor for the creditor’s willful violation of the automatic stay. The debtor had an agreement with the tanning bed salon in which the salon would deduct a monthly payment from her debit card. Despite numerous notifications of the bankruptcy and the violation of the automatic stay, the salon continued to make the deductions post-petition. The court enters an award for damages that includes attorney fees and punitive damages. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorney for Debtor: Grant M. Axon

2017-10-12 – in re witham

Author: Matt Lindblom

McKinstry v. B&H Contractors, LLC (In re GC London KY Inc.)

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Oct. 11, 2017)

The bankruptcy court enters judgment in favor of the Chapter 11 trustee, holding the trustee is entitled to recover approximately $280,000 in post-petition transfers and recover $40,000 in prepetition payments. The debtors repaid a post-petition loan that was not approved by the bankruptcy court and which was not in the ordinary course. The prepetition payments were preferential and the new value defense and ordinary course defenses do not apply. Opinion below.

Judge: Schaaf

Attorney for Trustee: Fowler Bell PLLC, Matthew D. Ellison

Attorneys for Defendant: Giodano, Halleran & Cisela, P.C., Donald F. Campbell, Jr.; Bingham Greenebaum Doll, James R. Irving, April A. Wimberg

2017-10-11 – in re gc london ky

Author: Matt Lindblom

Camofi Master LDC v. Spradlin

(E.D. Ky. Oct. 6, 2017)

The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s order granting the trustee’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The trustee has the exclusive right to pursue claims asserted in the complaint. The appellant’s arguments that the lawsuits were distinct are rejected. If the appellant and trustee could both pursue the claims there would be a significant chance of a double recovery. Opinion below.

Judge: Wilhoit

Attorneys for Appellants: Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, LLP, Casey M. Cantrell-Swartz, W. Timothy Miller; Akin Gump Strauss Huaer & Feld LLP, Douglas A. Rapp sport, Robert J. Boller

Attorneys for Appellees: Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP, Daniel J. Donnellon; Foley & Lardner, LLP, David B. Goroff, Geoffrey S. Goodman; Barber Law PLLC, T. Kent Barber; Luskin, Stern & Eisner LLP, Michael Luskin; Fowler Bell PLLC, Taft A. McKinstry

2017-10-06 – in re camofi master and camhzn master

Author: Matt Lindblom

Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld (In re Rosenfeld

(6th Cir. Oct. 6, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the 11 U.S.C. § 727 complaint. The plaintiff is the debtor’s ex-husband. The court holds that the plaintiff does not have standing to bring the complaint. The only debt owed to him was already nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15) because it was incurred in connection with a divorce decree. Opinion below.

Judge: Bush

Attorney for Appellant: Kenneth R. Beams

Appellee: Pro Se

2017-10-06 – in re rosenfeld

Author: Matt Lindblom