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

In re Stapp

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Aug. 21, 2017)

The bankruptcy court permits the creditor to file a 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(B) complaint. The creditor moved for leave to file its complaint because it had not received notice of the bankruptcy and the deadline for § 523 complaints had passed. The court finds that the debtor should have scheduled the creditor and that leave was not required given that § 523(a)(3)(B) allowed § 523 claims to be filed at any time if a creditor was not given proper notice of the bankruptcy filing. The court denies the motion with respect to the request to file a § 727 claim because the Bankruptcy Code does not contain a similar provision for those claims. Opinion below.

Judge: Moberly

Attorneys for Debtor: Tucker Legal Services, PC, William J. Tucker, Bradley J. Bucheit

Attorneys for Creditor: Riley Bennett Egloff LLP, Anthony R. Jost, Bryce H. Bennett, Jr.

2017-08-21 – in re stapp

Author: Matt Lindblom

Springer v. RNBJ RTO LLC (In re Springer)

 

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

The bankruptcy court enters judgment against the creditor for its violation of the automatic stay. The creditor is a home furnishing leasing company that leased furniture to the debtors prepetition. While the bankruptcy case was pending, the creditor continued weekly withdrawals from the debtors’ account. The creditor then refused to return the funds and attempted to recover the leased furniture from the debtors’ home. The court awards damages for the amount withdrawn from the debtors’ account and attorney fees, and awards punitive damages in the amount of $5,000. Opinion below.

Judge: Stout

Attorney for Debtor: Ross Benjamin Neuhauser

Attorney for Creditor: Brian Kevin Darling

2017-08-16 – in re springer

Author: Matt Lindblom