In re Pfetzer

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Mar. 22, 2018)

The bankruptcy court addresses the issue of whether a motion to dismiss for lack of good faith under 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c) can save an otherwise untimely § 1325(a)(7) objection to confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan. The court holds that because § 1325(a)(7) requires the determination of the debtor’s good faith in filing the petition as part of the plan confirmation process, a motion to dismiss under § 1325(a)(7) cannot rely on an allegation of lack of good faith if the motion is filed after the deadline to object to confirmation. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorney for Debtor: Michael B. Baker

Attorney for Creditor: Finney Law Firm, LLC, Justin C. Walker

2018-03-22 – in re pfetzer

Author: Matt Lindblom

Marshall v. Blake

(7th Cir. Mar 22, 2018)

The Seventh Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court after determining it has jurisdiction to hear the direct appeal from the bankruptcy court pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 8008. The court holds that the bankruptcy court correctly overruled the trustee’s objection to confirmation of the Chapter 13 plan. The plan appropriately applied the debtor’s tax credit and refund to the debtor’s disposable income calculation by converting it to an increase to monthly income. The trustee argued that the refund should be applied to additional plan payments and that it was inappropriate to apply it to the debtor’s monthly income. Opinion below.

Judge: Flaum

Attorney for Trustee: Lauren L. Tobiason

Attorneys for Debtor: James A. Brady, Jamie F. Reisman

2018-03-22 – in re blake

Author: Matt Lindblom

Indiana v. Owens (In re Owens)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Mar. 20, 2018)

The bankruptcy court holds that a fine for wrongful receipt of unemployment benefits is excepted from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7). However, the benefits received while the debtor worked under a certain contract were not excepted under § 523(a)(2) because the debtor established that he was confused by the government’s response to his question about whether he was “employed” if he was working pursuant to a coaching contract. Opinion below.

Judge: Carr

Attorney for Government: Megan Elizabeth Binder

Attorney for Debtor: Thomas H. Rothe

2018-03-20 – in re owens

Author: Matt Lindblom

Yusuf v. Oduyemi (In re Oduyemi)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Mar. 20, 2018)

The bankruptcy court finds in favor of the debtor in this nondischargeability action. The plaintiff alleged that the debtor had fraudulently taken funds from the plaintiff for the purchase of a vehicle that the debtor did not provide. The court finds that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient proof of the necessary intent under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6). Opinion below.

Judge: Carr

Attorney for Plaintiff: Carrie L. Breedlove

Debtor: Pro Se

2018-03-20 – in re oduyemi

Author: Matt Lindblom

Vande Ryt v. Peace (In re Peace)

(6th Cir. B.A.P. Mar. 15, 2018)

The B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s decision finding the debt nondischargeable and denying the debtor’s Rule 60(b) motion to set aside the judgment. The debtor argued that newly discovered evidence established that the creditor’s expert witness presented false testimony. The bankruptcy court concluded that the evidence was not dispositive and that the debtor failed to show it could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence prior to judgment. Opinion below.

Judge: Opperman

Attorney for Creditor: James E. Kolenich

Attorney for Debtor: Robert Gregory Kelly

2018-03-15 – in re peace

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Blankenship

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Mar. 14, 2018)

The bankruptcy court denies the debtor’s motions to avoid two judicial liens. The underlying judgments were solely against the debtor’s spouse. At the time the judgment liens were recorded, the property was owned jointly by the debtor and his spouse. The property was then transferred solely to the debtor. The debtor argues the liens impair his exemptions. The court finds because the lien holders are not creditors of the debtor, the liens do not attach to the debtor’s interest in the property. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorney for Debtor: Julie Ann O’Bryan

Attorney for Creditors: Jeffrey Sexton

2018-03-14 – in re blankenship

Author: Matt Lindblom

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

(6th Cir. Mar. 7, 2018)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s decision finding that the debtor had redeemed real property following a pre-petition foreclosure action. If the debtor could establish that it had not redeemed the property then its affiliate may have title to the property and the bank’s mortgage would no longer encumber the property. However, because Michigan law permits parties to extend the redemption period and the evidence supported a finding that the parties agreed to an extension and negotiated the redemption payment, the mortgage is still effective. Opinion below.

Judge: Cole

Attorney for Appellant: Robert N. Bassel

Attorney for Appellee: ECP Commerical II LLC

2018-03-07 – in re town center flats

Author: Matt Lindblom

U.S. Bank N.A. v. Village at Lakeridge, LLC

(U.S. Sup. Ct. Mar. 5, 2018)

The Supreme Court affirms the Ninth Circuit’s determination that a “clear error” review applied to the issue presented. The issue was whether an individual creditor was an “insider” under 11 U.S.C. § 101(31), which in this case determined whether a chapter 11 cramdown plan could be confirmed. The issue required the bankruptcy court to apply established facts to the correct legal standard for determination of insider status (a mixed question of law and fact). The Court holds that this particular question entails primarily legal work rather than factual work. Accordingly, “clear error” review was appropriate. Opinion below.

Justice: Kagan

2018-03-05 – u. s. bank n. a. v. village at lakeridge, llc

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Hole

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Mar. 2, 2018)

The bankruptcy court grants the creditors’ motion for an extension of time to file a non-dischargeability complaint. The motion was filed one day after the deadline for filing such complaints. The court finds that the creditors had been diligent in pursuing their claims, the debtor was not prejudiced by the delay, and the circumstances warranted extending the deadline pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 105(a). Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorney for Debtor: Julie Ann O’Bryan

Attorney for Creditor: Ballard Rogers Law Office, PLLC, B. Ballard Rogers

2018-03-02 – in re hole

Author: Matt Lindblom

Owens v. Coffey (In re Coffey)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Mar. 1, 2018)

The bankruptcy court denies the debtor’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The plaintiff commenced a state court action prior to the bankruptcy that asserted claims against the debtor, including fraud. The debtor argued that the plaintiff’s non-dischargeability claims were barred by res judicata, as the Chapter 13 plan had already been confirmed. The court notes that there was no express provision in the plan that provided the plaintiff’s claims were deemed dischargeable. Further, the debtor’s arguments as to the merits of the underlying claim should be asserted in the state court action and would not defeat the non-dischargeability claims at this stage. The court holds the adversary proceeding in abeyance so the state court action can proceed. Opinion below.

Judge: Stout

Attorney for Debtor: Joseph S. Elder, II

Attorney for Creditor: Willam R. Noelker

2018-03-01 – in re coffey

Author: Matt Lindblom