In re Lane

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

The bankruptcy court denies the creditors’ motion to dismiss the Chapter 13 case. The motion raised issues that could have been raised in an objection to confirmation of the plan. The confirmation order operates as res judicata of all issues which could have been raised at the confirmation hearing. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorneys for Debtor: Seiller Waterman LLC, Neil Charles Bordy

Creditor: Pro Se

2018-02-05 – in re lane

Author: Matt Lindblom

Wheatley v. Oklahoma Tower & Energy Services, LLC (In re Alliance Management Services, LLC)

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

The bankruptcy court enters summary judgment against the defendant in this preference action. The trustee served requests for admissions on the defendant, but the defendant failed to submit timely responses. The trustee sought entry of summary judgment based on the requests for admission being deemed admitted. The bankruptcy court finds that the admissions satisfy the trustee’s burden, and summary judgment in the amount of $125,282 is appropriate.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorneys for Trustee: Seiller Waterman LLC, Neil Charles Bordy, Keith J. Larson

Attorney for Defendant: Ron D. Brown

2018-01-23 – in re alliance management services

Author: Matt Lindblom

Campbell v. Butz (In re Butz)

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

The bankruptcy court enters judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in this non-dischargeability action. The debtors had obtained a loan from the plaintiffs (parents of one of the debtors) to be used in the debtors’ business. The loan was secured by a lien on the debtors’ personal property. The debtors used loan funds for personal expenses rather than the business, and the debtors sold much of their personal property without turning the proceeds over to the plaintiffs. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Kerrick Bachert PSC, Scott A. Bachert, Ashley Gerughty

Attorney for Debtors: Mark H. Flener

2018-01-05 – in re butz

Author: Matt Lindblom

Crop Production Services, Inc. v. Wheeler (In re Wheeler)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Dec. 22, 2017)

The bankruptcy court enters summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, finding that its lien had priority over the other lender’s lien. The other lender had perfected its lien with a UCC-1 but years later accidentally filed a termination statement. The lender then filed another document noting that the termination was accidental, attempting to reinstate the perfected lien. The plaintiff filed its UCC-1 later. The court holds that UCC Article 9 controls, and the termination statement could not be amended or revoked in order to reinstate the original UCC-1. Thus, the plaintiff’s secured claim had priority over the other lender’s claim. Opinion below.

Judge: Fulton

Attorney for Plaintiff: David T. Reynolds

Attorneys for Defendants: Steve Vidmer; Robert B. Frazer, Roy Massey, IV

2017-12-22 – in re wheeler

Author: Matt Lindblom

Wheatley v. Johnson (In re Johnson)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Dec. 21, 2017)

The bankruptcy court enters judgment in favor of the trustee, finding a prepetition transfer from the debtor to her son was a fraudulent transfer under 11 U.S.C. §§ 547 and 548. The debtor had transferred her tax refund to her son for the purpose of paying certain bills and obligations of the son. The debtor did not receive reasonably equivalent value and the Court declines to adopt the “no harm, no foul” rule defense (i.e. wildcard exemption is not fully used, but could have been used for the subject funds). Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorney for Trustee: Peter M. Gannott

Attorney for Defendant: Ross Benjamin Neuhauser

2017-12-21 – in re johnson

Author: Matt Lindblom

Ryan v. Morris (In re Morris)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Dec. 19, 2017)

The bankruptcy court enters judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, holding the debt owed to them is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6), and holding that the debtors should be denied a discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(3) and (a)(4). The debtors borrowed funds from the plaintiffs for real estate investments but failed to fully disclose how the funds were being used and used proceeds from sales for unauthorized purchases. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Kerrick Bachert PSC, Scott A. Bachert, Ashley Gerughty

Attorneys for Debtors: Mark H. Flener, Alicia C. Johnson

2017-12-19 – in re morris

Author: Matt Lindblom

Edmonton State Bank v. Smith (In re Smith)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Dec. 6, 2017)

The bankruptcy court finds that two tobacco pole barns on the debtor’s property were fixtures and thus subject to the plaintiff bank’s mortgage. Two other creditors with security interests in the debtor’s personal property argued that the barns were instead subject to their liens and thus the insurance proceeds following destruction of the barns in a wind storm should be subject to their lien. The court analyzes Kentucky law on fixtures and rules in favor of the mortgage holder. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorney for Plaintiff: T. Richard Alexander, II

Attorney for Debtor: Sullivan Mountjoy Stainback & Miller PSC, K. Timothy Kline

Attorney for Defendants: Brian R. Pollock; Adam R. Kegley

2017-12-06 – in re smith

Author: Matt Lindblom