Business Bankruptcy/Business Litigation Attorney
Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC is seeking an associate attorney for the Business Bankruptcy and Business Litigation practices in the Louisville office. This position is full time and includes benefits.
Please submit a cover letter and resume to Denise Wilson, Director of HR, at denise.wilson@skofirm.com
(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
Author: Matt Lindblom
(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
Author: Matt Lindblom
(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
Author: Matt Lindblom
(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
Author: Matt Lindblom
(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
Author: Matt Lindblom
(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
Author: Matt Lindblom
(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
Author: Matt Lindblom
(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
Author: Matt Lindblom
(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
Kentuckiana Bankruptcy Opinions 