Cox v. Specialty Vehicle Solutions, LLC

(6th Cir. Nov. 14, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit vacates the district court’s judgment dismissing the creditor’s lawsuit against the debtor. The lawsuit was filed after the petition date, and the bankruptcy court entered an order that vacated the automatic stay so that the creditor was permitted “to resume and prosecute to conclusion” the lawsuit. The debtor then filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing the initial case filed was null and void because it had been filed in violation of the automatic stay and a second action filed was outside the 30-day period allowed by 11 U.S.C. § 108(c) after lifting of the stay. The court finds that the stay lift order is ambiguous because it doesn’t clearly state that the stay was “annulled” or that the relief granted is retroactive to validate the first lawsuit filed. The court remands for consideration of additional evidence and correct application of Easley v. Petit One Mich. Corp. Opinion below.

Judge: White

Attorneys for Creditor: Seiller Waterman, David M. Cantor, Keith James Larson; Taliaferro, Carran & Keys, Philip Taliaferro, III

Attorneys for Debtor: Casey, Bailey & Maines, Susan L. Maines

2017-11-14 – in re cox

Author: Matt Lindblom

Couch v. Panther Petroleum, LLC (In re Couch)

(6th Cir. Nov. 6, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the B.A.P., holding the entry of summary judgment in favor of the creditors in the nondischargeability action was appropriate. The creditors obtained a default judgment against the debtor in Tennessee state court. The default judgment was on the merits and the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied. Opinion below.

Judge: Rogers

Appellant: Pro Se

Attorneys for Creditors: Keating, Muething & Klekamp, Joseph E. Lehnert, Brian P. Muething, Jason V. Stitt

2017-11-06 – in re couch

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Wilson

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

The bankruptcy court grants the creditor’s motion for stay relief to proceed with a state court foreclosure action. The creditor had obtained an order granting stay relief in a prior bankruptcy filed by the debtor’s son, the owner of the property. The debtor’s life estate interest in the property does not prevent the foreclosure action from proceeding. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorney for Debtor: Mark H. Flener

Attorney for Creditor: Bradley S. Salyer

2017-11-01 – in re wilson

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Lexington Hospitality Group, LLC

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 1, 2011)

The bankruptcy court grants the debtor’s motion regarding cash collateral use, because the property to be used (hotel revenue and post-petition restaurant revenue) was not subject to a perfected security interest. The court determines that the hotel revenue paid in cash was not subject to the creditor’s mortgage because it was not rent. A hotel customer does not obtain a real property interest in a hotel room, but instead has a license. The cash paid for the room is thus personal property. The creditor was not in possession of the cash or deposit accounts, and thus the lien was not perfected as to that cash. Hotel revenue paid from credit cards constituted an obligation that would be a “payment intangible” under Article 9. The creditor’s financing statement failed to identify payment intangibles as collateral. While it referenced an “all asset” security agreement, that was insufficient to perfect a security interest in payment intangibles. The creditor does not have a lien on post-petition restaurant revenue pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 552. Opinion below

Judge: Schaaf

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

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

2017-11-01 – in re lexington hospitality group

Author: Matt Lindblom