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

In re Kempff

(7th Cir. Jan. 30, 2017)

The Seventh Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s judgment in favor of the debtor in the nondischargeability action. The creditor argued the discharge should be denied because the debtor transferred funds to pay a tax claim after the petition was filed and because of misstatements in the debtor’s schedules. The bankruptcy court found that the debtor did not authorize the post-petition transfer and found her testimony that the errors in the schedules were innocent mistakes. The court affirms, finding no basis to disturb the bankruptcy court’s findings and acceptance of the debtor’s testimony. Opinion below.

Judge: Sykes

Attorneys for Debtor: Burke, Warren, Mackay & Serritella, P.C.

Attorney for Appellant: Jeffrey W. Finke

2017-01-30-in-re-kempff

Author: Matt Lindblom

Simmons v. Crossroads Bank

(N.D. Ind. June 22, 2015)

The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s order denying the debtor a discharge for making false oaths in connection with his bankruptcy case. The debtor failed to list a number of assets and transactions in his schedules and statement of financial affairs. The creditor filed the complaint to deny the discharge and then amended the complaint well after the deadline for filing such complaints. The debtor argued the amendments should not have been allowed. The court recognizes the narrower standard for amendments to relate back to the original complaint in denial of discharge proceedings, but it holds that here the amendments merely listed additional omissions from the debtor’s filings and served as additional support for the original claim, and thus should relate back to the original filing date. The court also finds that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in finding the debtor had the requisite intent. Opinion below.

2015-06-22 – simmons v crossroads bank

Author: Matt Lindblom