(Bankr. N.D. Ind. Oct. 6, 2015)
The bankruptcy court denies the creditor’s motion to dismiss the trustee’s objection to the creditor’s claim, without prejudice. The creditor failed to comply with a local rule requiring supporting briefs to be filed separate from their motions. The court reasoned that confusion as to deadlines for responding to such a motion would likely result because the local rule was not followed. Opinion below.
Author: Matt Lindblom
In re Shell (Bankr. N.D. Ind. May 12, 2015) – Court overrules trustee’s objection to claim because trustee failed to allege any facts to support conclusory allegation that claim was barred by statute of limitations.
In re Wembley (Bankr. N.D. Ind. May 19, 2015) – Court denies debtor’s motion to reconsider order dismissing case.
Seifert v. Diskey (In re Diskey) (Bankr. N.D. Ind. May 19, 2015) – Court revokes the debtor’s discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(6) and (d)(3) for failure to comply with a court order.
In re Teeple (Bankr. N.D. Ind. Aug. 6, 2015) – Court overrules the debtor’s objection to the trustee’s final report and proposed distribution.
Johnson v. U.S. Dept. of Education (In re Johnson) (Bankr. N.D. Ind. Aug. 6, 2015) – Court rules against the debtor, finding education loan is non dischargeable.
2015-08-06 – johnson v us department of education
In re Long (Bankr. N.D. Ind. Aug. 7, 2015) – Court overrules objection to trustee’s motion for turnonver, because party filing objection (not the debtor) did not have standing to object.
Author: Matt Lindblom
(Bankr. N.D. Ind. Aug. 10, 2015)
The bankruptcy court grants in part the motion to restrict access to filings with personally identifiable information. The court finds that the motion fails to comply with Bankruptcy Rule 9013, which requires motions to state both the relief sought and the grounds therefore with particularity. The court states that “particularity is not the same thing as verbosity.” The motion fails to state exactly which pleading the movant is asking to redact. The court quotes a Seventh Circuit opinion: “Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in briefs.” Opinion below.
Author: Matt Lindblom
Hernandez-Gutierrez v. Montgomery (Bankr. N.D. Ind. Jan. 30, 2015) – Court denies motion for summary judgment in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) action.
2015-01-30 – hernandez-gutierrez v montgomery
Leffler v. Orthopaedics Indianapolis, Inc. (Bankr. N.D. Ind. Feb. 6, 2015) – Court denies motion to dismiss in action seeking judgment for violation of automatic stay and the discharge injunction.
2015-02-06 – leffler v orthopaedics indianapolis
Bradley v. Klein (Bankr. N.D. Ind. Feb. 9, 2015) – Court denies motion for default judgment without prejudice due to lack of evidence of proper service.
Keybank N.A. v. Stackhouse (Bankr. N.D. Ind. Feb. 18, 2015) – Court denies plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on non-dischargeability claim under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) and request for denial of discharge under § 727(a)(4).
2015-02-18 – keybank v stackhouse
In re Marion (Bankr. N.D. Ind. Mar. 10, 2015) – Court denies trustee’s motion to extend deadline to object to debtor’s claimed exemptions.
In re Farwell (Bankr. N.D. Ind. Mar. 12, 2015) – Court dismisses Chapter 13 case with sanctions and 180-day filing bar where debtor had filed four petitions in about 15 months, each of which were dismissed for failure to meet statutory requirements to be a debtor.
In re Gonzalez (Bankr. N.D. Ind. Mar. 16, 2015) – Court denies Chapter 7 debtor’s request for waiver of the credit counseling requirement.
Schroeder v. American Education Services (Bankr. N.D. Ind. Mar. 17, 2015) – Court denies motion to dismiss or alternatively for summary judgment in adversary proceeding.
2015-03-17 – schroeder v american education services
Chamberlin v. 1st Source Bank (Bankr. N.D. Ind. Mar. 17, 2015) – Court grants summary judgment in adversary proceeding to determine priority of mortgages on debtor’s residence. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars relitigating priority issue decided by state court prepetition.
2015-03-17 – chamberlin v 1st source bank
Indiana v. Taylor (Bankr. N.D. Ind. Mar. 31, 2015) – Court grants default judgment against debtor and declares debt non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).
Foreman v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Bankr. N.D. Ind. Apr. 22, 2015) – Court grants debtors’ motion for default judgment and grants a hardship discharge of student loan debt.
2015-04-22 – foreman v jpmorgan chase bank
Vendramin v. Henry (Bankr. N.D. Ind. Apr. 30, 2015) – Court dismisses nondischargebility action after trial where plaintiff failed to establish the debtor owed a debt to the plaintiff.
(Bankr. N.D. Ind. Jan. 7, 2015)
The bankruptcy court finds sanctions are appropriate and enters an order fining the creditors $1,000 for submitting proofs of claim in violation of Bankruptcy Rule 9011. The debts were clearly barred by Indiana’s six-year limitations period. The debtor objected to the proof of claim, the creditors did not respond, and the claims were denied. The court then issued show cause orders, to which the creditors also did not respond. The creditors had not conducted the reasonable investigation required by Rule 9011 before submitting the claims. Opinion below.
Author: Matt Lindblom
(Bankr. N.D. Ind. Dec. 19, 2014)
The bankruptcy court denies the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this nondischargeability action. The plaintiff’s motion asserted the debtor was collaterally estopped from arguing facts contrary to those deemed admitted by him in the prepetition state court action. The court states that requests for admission are only good for the proceeding in which they are made and have no bearing in subsequent litigation. Such facts cannot support a claim of collateral estoppel. Opinion below.
(Bankr. N.D. Ind. Dec. 16, 2014)
The bankruptcy court denies the defendants’ motion to dismiss the adversary proceeding. The trustee had sued the defendants in state court seeking to avoid certain stock transactions with the debtor. The trustee then removed the action to the bankruptcy court, and the defendants moved to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and mandatory abstention. The court has jurisdiction because the determination of the trustee’s claims has a significant impact on the debtor’s estate. Further, the court is not required to abstain, because abstention requires an action to be pending in another court. Because the case was removed to the bankruptcy court, there was no longer an action pending in state court. Opinion below.
(Bankr. N.D. Ind. Nov. 26, 2014)
The bankruptcy court sustains the debtor’s objection to his ex-wife’s claim to the extent it purported to be a priority claim arising from a domestic support obligation. The state court had resolved custody and child support issues in its initial divorce decree. A year later it entered an order titled “Order Dividing Marital Assets and Debts,” directing the debtor to pay $50,000 to his ex-wife “[t]o equalize the division of the marital state,” but also stating “the Court finds this judgment to be in the nature of child support and maintenance.” Despite the state court’s statement that the judgment was in the nature of child support and maintenance, the bankruptcy court looks to the context and purpose of the award to determine whether it is a domestic support obligation under the bankruptcy code. Under the circumstances, the bankruptcy court concludes it is not. Opinion below.
(Bankr. N.D. Ind. Nov. 6, 2014)
The bankruptcy court denies the debtor’s motion to dismiss the complaint seeking to declare a particular debt nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2) and denial of the discharge generally under § 727(a)(2). The plaintiff alleged that the debtor misrepresented his ownership interest in certain property. The debtor argued this was a statement of financial condition and that because it was not in writing it could not support a denial of discharge under § 523(a)(2). The bankruptcy court holds that statements related to an interest in property are not statements of financial condition, and the alleged misrepresentation was sufficient to state a claim under § 523(a)(2). The plaintiff also alleged the debtor was the alter ego of his corporation, and that the debtor caused the corporation to transfer property without consideration to another entity. The debtor argued the plaintiff failed to state a claim under § 727(a)(2) because the property transferred was not property of the debtor. The bankruptcy court held that a claim was properly stated because the plaintiff alleged the corporation was the alter ego of the debtor and thus the property was alleged to be property of the debtor. Opinion below.
(Bankr. N.D. Ind. Nov. 6, 2014)
The bankruptcy court dismisses the counterclaim for malicious prosecution asserted against the trustee. While the counterclaim recited the language of Indiana Rule of Trial Procedure 11, the bankruptcy court recognized that supporting facts must be plead to properly state a claim for relief. The counterclaim failed to set forth facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and the court granted the trustee’s motion to dismiss. Opinion below.
Kentuckiana Bankruptcy Opinions 