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

Woodson v. Ausmus

(W.D. Ky. Mar. 31, 2016)

The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s decision to bar the creditor’s nondischargeability claims for being untimely. The bankruptcy notice set forth the applicable bar date for assertion of such claims, based on the first scheduled meeting of creditors. The case was then repeatedly dismissed for failure to file schedules and reinstated on motions of the debtor. While the meeting of creditors was rescheduled and continued, no changes were made to the initial bar date for nondischargeability claims. The court enforces the deadline and declines to exercise its equitable powers under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) to revoke the discharge. Opinion below.

Judge: Stivers

Attorney for Debtors: Whitford & Neuhauser, Ross B. Neuhauser

Attorney for Creditor: Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, James L. Adams

2016-03-31 – woodson v ausmus

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re E.C. Morris Corp.

(6th Cir. B.A.P. Dec. 10, 2014)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s denial of the motion to enforce an order approving compromise of claims in this Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The movants were the debtor’s principal and the new entity that held property owned by the debtor entity prepetition. Before the bankruptcy, the respondents had instituted successor liability and fraudulent transfer claims against the movants in state court. During the bankruptcy, the trustee settled the estate’s claims against the movants, which settlement was approved by the bankruptcy court. After the bankruptcy was concluded, the respondents reactivated the state court litigation. The movants then filed their motion with the bankruptcy court, seeking to enjoin the prosecution of the state court litigation based on res judicata. The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. holds that the bankruptcy court appropriately denied the motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The state court litigation was not directed at the debtor or the debtor’s estate and would have no impact on the estate. While the trustee could have brought the claims while the bankruptcy was pending, after it was closed, the respondents could proceed with the claims. 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) and the Anti-Injunction Act also did not permit the bankruptcy to grant the requested relief. Opinion below.

2014-12-10 – in re ec morris corp