CNH Industrial Capital America LLC v. Williams (In re Williams)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Apr. 5, 2018)

The bankruptcy court enters summary judgment in favor of the creditor on two counts in the nondischargeability complaint. The debtor sold two pieces of equipment collateral without delivering the proceeds to the creditor. The court finds that the facts establish the debtor acted willfully and maliciously in causing the injury to the creditor. A third piece of equipment collateral was repossessed by another creditor and created a factual dispute. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorney for Creditor: Andrews Law Firm, PLLC, Ashley Sanders Cox

Attorney for Debtor: Mark H. Flener

2018-04-05 – in re williams

Author: Matt Lindblom

Diaz v. Castillo (In re Castillo)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Apr. 4, 2018)

The bankruptcy court denies the debtor’s motion to dismiss the nondischargeability complaint. The court finds that the complaint is a short, plain statement of the plaintiff’s claims, which constitute plausible claims upon which relief can be granted. Opinion below.

Judge: Carr

Attorney for Plaintiff: Randolph A. Leerkamp

Attorney for Debtor: Carey Law Office, Penny Lynn Carey

2018-04-04 – in re castillo

Author: Matt Lindblom

Edmonton State Bank v. Smith (In re Smith)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Mar. 23, 2018)

The bankruptcy court denies the creditor’s motion to amend the December 2017 judgment. The creditor’s lien was only on equipment and did not apply to two pole barn structures, which were fixtures and subject to the competing creditor’s mortgage. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorney for Movant: Stites & Harbison, Brian R. Pollock

Attorney for Mortgagee: T. Richard Alexander, II

2018-03-23 – in re smith

Author: Matt Lindblom

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