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

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 Blankenship

(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

In re Hole

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Mar. 2, 2018)

The bankruptcy court grants the creditors’ motion for an extension of time to file a non-dischargeability complaint. The motion was filed one day after the deadline for filing such complaints. The court finds that the creditors had been diligent in pursuing their claims, the debtor was not prejudiced by the delay, and the circumstances warranted extending the deadline pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 105(a). Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorney for Debtor: Julie Ann O’Bryan

Attorney for Creditor: Ballard Rogers Law Office, PLLC, B. Ballard Rogers

2018-03-02 – in re hole

Author: Matt Lindblom

Owens v. Coffey (In re Coffey)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Mar. 1, 2018)

The bankruptcy court denies the debtor’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The plaintiff commenced a state court action prior to the bankruptcy that asserted claims against the debtor, including fraud. The debtor argued that the plaintiff’s non-dischargeability claims were barred by res judicata, as the Chapter 13 plan had already been confirmed. The court notes that there was no express provision in the plan that provided the plaintiff’s claims were deemed dischargeable. Further, the debtor’s arguments as to the merits of the underlying claim should be asserted in the state court action and would not defeat the non-dischargeability claims at this stage. The court holds the adversary proceeding in abeyance so the state court action can proceed. Opinion below.

Judge: Stout

Attorney for Debtor: Joseph S. Elder, II

Attorney for Creditor: Willam R. Noelker

2018-03-01 – in re coffey

Author: Matt Lindblom

Dean v. Lane (In re Lane)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Feb. 21, 2018)

The bankruptcy court grants the debtor’s motion to dismiss the nondischargeability action. The plaintiffs asserted a personal injury claim against the debtor, but they were unable to proceed with prosecution of the claim due to the automatic stay. The plaintiffs filed a complaint objecting to the discharge of this claim. The court dismisses the case, holding it does not have jurisdiction to liquidate or estimate the claim because personal injury claims have not been referred to the bankruptcy court, pursuant to LR 83.12(a). Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Plaintiffs: Pro Se

Attorneys for Debtor: Seiller Waterman LLC, Neil Charles Bordy

2018-02-21 – in re lane

Author: Matt Lindblom

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