Indiana v. Owens (In re Owens)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Mar. 20, 2018)

The bankruptcy court holds that a fine for wrongful receipt of unemployment benefits is excepted from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7). However, the benefits received while the debtor worked under a certain contract were not excepted under § 523(a)(2) because the debtor established that he was confused by the government’s response to his question about whether he was “employed” if he was working pursuant to a coaching contract. Opinion below.

Judge: Carr

Attorney for Government: Megan Elizabeth Binder

Attorney for Debtor: Thomas H. Rothe

2018-03-20 – in re owens

Author: Matt Lindblom

Yusuf v. Oduyemi (In re Oduyemi)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Mar. 20, 2018)

The bankruptcy court finds in favor of the debtor in this nondischargeability action. The plaintiff alleged that the debtor had fraudulently taken funds from the plaintiff for the purchase of a vehicle that the debtor did not provide. The court finds that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient proof of the necessary intent under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6). Opinion below.

Judge: Carr

Attorney for Plaintiff: Carrie L. Breedlove

Debtor: Pro Se

2018-03-20 – in re oduyemi

Author: Matt Lindblom

Calloway Cleaning & Restoration, Inc. v. McFarland (In re McFarland)

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Feb. 20, 2018)

The bankruptcy court enters summary judgment in favor of the debtors in this nondischargeability action. Following a Christmas Eve fire at the debtors’ home, they entered into a contract with the plaintiff to restore the property. The contract provided that the plaintiff would take insurance proceeds as compensation for the work. A dispute arose, and the debtors used the insurance proceeds for other expenses. The plaintiff argued that the debt is non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2) and (4). The court disagrees, finding the creditor failed to present evidence sufficient to establish the necessary intent under § 523(a)(2) or to establish a “fiduciary capacity” under § 523(a)(4). Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorneys for Creditor: Frost Brown Todd LLC, Patricia K. Burgess; Michael E. Nitardy

Attorney for Debtors: Michael L. Baker

2018-02-20 – in re mcfarland

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

Feldman v. Pearl (In re Pearl)

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Sep. 29, 2017)

The bankruptcy court enters judgment in favor of the debtor in this nondischargeability action. The plaintiff sought a judgment under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2), (4), and (6). The plaintiff alleged that the debtor wrongfully received distributions from the business entity controlled jointly by the debtor and the plaintiff. The court finds the plaintiff failed to present evidence sufficient to support the claims under § 523. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorneys for Plaintiff: Michael B. Baker, William R. O’Bryan, Jr.

Attorney for Defendant: Stuart P. Brown

2017-09-29 – in re pearl

Author: Matt Lindblom

Haire v. Padgett (In re Padgett)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Sep. 1, 2017)

The bankruptcy court finds in favor of the debtor in this nondischargeability action. The creditor’s claim was based on missing restaurant equipment following the termination of a real property lease to the debtor. The court finds the creditor failed to present evidence establishing that the debtor was responsible for the loss. The elements of §§ 523(a)(2), (4), and (6) were not satisfied. Opinion below.

Judge: Fulton

Attorneys for Debtor: Farmer & Wright, PLLC, Todd A. Farmer

Attorney for Creditor: Steve Vidmer

2017-09-01 – in re padgett

Author: Matt Lindblom

 

Savino v. Dodd (In re Dodd)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. July 14, 2017)

The bankruptcy court denies the creditor’s motion for summary judgment in this nondischargeability action under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2), (4), and (6). The creditor argued the debtor should be collaterally estopped from defending based on a prepetition judgment entered against the debtor. The court concludes that the issues were not “fairly and fully litigated” in the state court, and thus summary judgment based on collateral estoppel is not appropriate. Opinion below.

Judge: Moberly

Attorneys for Plaintiff: Blackwell, Burke & Ramsey, P.C., David M. Bullington, Jason R. Burke

Attorneys for Debtor: Halcomb Singler, LLP, Erika K. Singler

2017-07-14 – in re dodd

Author: Matt Lindblom