Jodway v. Fifth Third Bank (In re Jodway)

(Sixth Circuit Jan. 5, 2018)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the debtor’s Chapter 13 case. The debtor’s plan provided that he would surrender his property to the bank and make deficiency payments. However, the debtor failed to comply with these terms and instead challenged the bank’s foreclosure case in state court. The bankruptcy court dismissed the case for failure to comply with the terms of the plan. The Sixth Circuit summarily rejects numerous arguments from the debtor, including arguments based on subject-matter jurisdiction, due process, and validity of the mortgage. Opinion below.

Judge: Thapar

Attorney for Debtor: Alaina Zanke-Jodway

Attorney for Bank: Elizabeth Abood-Carroll

2018-01-05 – in re jodway

Author: Matt Lindblom

Church Joint Venture, L.P. V. Grusin (In re Blasingame)

(Sixth Circuit, Jan. 4, 2018)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the B.A.P.’s decision to reverse the bankruptcy court’s order for sanctions. The movant failed to satisfy the twenty-one day safe harbor in Rule 9011. Click here for the B.A.P. opinion. Opinion below.

Judge: Keith

Attorney for Appellant: Malone Akerly Martin, Bruce W. Akerly

Attorney for Appellee: Edward Michael Bearman, Gary E., Veazey

2018-01-04 – in re blasingame

Author: Matt Lindblom

Nestle Waters North America, Inc. v. Mountain Glacier LLC (In re Mountain Glacier LLC)

(Sixth Circuit Dec. 11, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s decision finding the reorganized Chapter 11 debtor retained its claims against the defendant in a pre-petition arbitration. The court finds that the debtor sufficiently identified the claim in its disclosure statement and the plan provided that it would be transferred to the reorganized debtor. Nothing more was required to retain the claim. Opinion below.

Judge: Thapar

Attorney for Debtor: Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, William L. Norton, III

Attorneys for Defendant: Pepper Hamilton, Robert S. Hertzberg, Deborah T. Kovsky-Apap; Baker Donelson, Courtney Hunter Gilmer, John Hayden Rowland

2017-12-11 – in re mountain glacier

Author: Matt Lindblom

Cox v. Specialty Vehicle Solutions, LLC

(6th Cir. Nov. 14, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit vacates the district court’s judgment dismissing the creditor’s lawsuit against the debtor. The lawsuit was filed after the petition date, and the bankruptcy court entered an order that vacated the automatic stay so that the creditor was permitted “to resume and prosecute to conclusion” the lawsuit. The debtor then filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing the initial case filed was null and void because it had been filed in violation of the automatic stay and a second action filed was outside the 30-day period allowed by 11 U.S.C. § 108(c) after lifting of the stay. The court finds that the stay lift order is ambiguous because it doesn’t clearly state that the stay was “annulled” or that the relief granted is retroactive to validate the first lawsuit filed. The court remands for consideration of additional evidence and correct application of Easley v. Petit One Mich. Corp. Opinion below.

Judge: White

Attorneys for Creditor: Seiller Waterman, David M. Cantor, Keith James Larson; Taliaferro, Carran & Keys, Philip Taliaferro, III

Attorneys for Debtor: Casey, Bailey & Maines, Susan L. Maines

2017-11-14 – in re cox

Author: Matt Lindblom

Couch v. Panther Petroleum, LLC (In re Couch)

(6th Cir. Nov. 6, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the B.A.P., holding the entry of summary judgment in favor of the creditors in the nondischargeability action was appropriate. The creditors obtained a default judgment against the debtor in Tennessee state court. The default judgment was on the merits and the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied. Opinion below.

Judge: Rogers

Appellant: Pro Se

Attorneys for Creditors: Keating, Muething & Klekamp, Joseph E. Lehnert, Brian P. Muething, Jason V. Stitt

2017-11-06 – in re couch

Author: Matt Lindblom

Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld (In re Rosenfeld

(6th Cir. Oct. 6, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the 11 U.S.C. § 727 complaint. The plaintiff is the debtor’s ex-husband. The court holds that the plaintiff does not have standing to bring the complaint. The only debt owed to him was already nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15) because it was incurred in connection with a divorce decree. Opinion below.

Judge: Bush

Attorney for Appellant: Kenneth R. Beams

Appellee: Pro Se

2017-10-06 – in re rosenfeld

Author: Matt Lindblom

McKay v. City of Detroit, Michigan (In re City of Detroit)

(6th Cir. Sep. 28, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s interpretation of the creditor’s settlement agreement with the debtor. The agreement provided that the creditor released his claims against the city and the individual officers. The plan only provided for a small percentage to be paid on the claim, but stated claims against individual officers were not discharged by the plan. The creditor argued the settlement agreement should not be held to have released claims against the individual officers, but the court finds the plain language of the agreement makes clear such claims were released. Opinion below.

Judge: Sutton

Attorney for Creditor: Eric Stempien

Attorney for Debtor: Miller Canfield Paddock & Stone, Marc N. Swanson, Ronald A. Spinner

2017-09-28 – in re city of detroit

Author: Matt Lindblom