National Labor Relations Board v. Calvert

(S.D. Ind. Mar. 31, 2017)

The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s ruling in favor of the debtor in the nondischargeability action. The NLRB argued its claim against the debtor should be denied under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). The court holds that the prepetition administrative ruling finding the debtor acted out of “antiunion animus” did not necessarily satisfy the  requisite intent required under § 523(a)(6). Collateral estoppel did not apply. Opinion below.

Judge: Barker

Attorneys for NLRB: Dalford D. Owens , Jr., William R. Warwick

Attorneys for Debtor: Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Dustin R. DeNeal, Harmony A. Mappes

2017-03-31 – national labor relations board v calvert

Author: Matt Lindblom

Hunt v. Spencer (In re Spencer)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Feb. 24, 2017)

The bankruptcy court denies the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this nondischargeability action under 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2), (4), and (6). The plaintiff argued that a state court judgment collaterally estopped the debtor from defending against the claims. The court holds that the findings in the state court judgment are insufficient to prevent the debtor from asserting a defense in this action. Opinion below.

Judge: Carr

Attorney for Plaintiff: Mulvey Law LLC, Joseph L. Mulvey

Attorney for Debtor: Mercho Caughey & DeLay, Tarek Elias Mercho

2017-02-24-in-re-spencer

Author: Matt Lindblom

HIJ Industries, Inc. v. Roy (In re Roy)

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Jan. 26, 2017)

The bankruptcy court enters judgment in favor of the debtor, dismissing claims under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) and § 727(a)(2)(A). The plaintiff argued that the debtor executed a scheme that intentionally injured the plaintiff because the debtor became unable to pay on promissory notes. The Court finds that the plaintiff did not establish that the debtor willfully and maliciously injured the plaintiff. Also, while the debtor had transferred title to a truck from his sole ownership to joint ownership with his wife within a year of the bankruptcy petition, the plaintiff failed to establish the requisite intent. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorney for Plaintiff: Tricia A. Shackelford

Attorney for Debtor: John M. Simms

2017-01-26-in-re-roy

Author: Matt Lindblom

Crawford v. Vanwinkle (In re Vanwinkle)

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Dec. 27, 2016)

The bankruptcy court dismisses the creditor’s non-dischargeability complaint under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6). The creditor conceded that the debt was based on a breach of contract claim. However, the creditor alleged the debt was converted to a non-dischargeable debt based on the debtor’s post-judgment efforts to avoid collection. The court finds that the creditor failed to state a claim in part because the alleged behavior did not result in the debt sought to be declared non-dischargeable. Opinion below.

Judge: Schaaf

Attorneys for Plaintiff: DelCotto Law Group PLLC, Laura Day DelCotto

Attorney for Defendant: Michael B. Baker

2016-12-27-in-re-vanwinkle

Author: Matt Lindblom

Hager v. Maynard (In re Maynard)

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 1, 2016)

The bankruptcy court grants the debtor’s motion for summary judgment in this 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) nondishargeability action. The plaintiff alleged the debtor willfully and maliciously injured the plaintiff, but failed to offer any evidence that would create a material factual dispute as to the debtor’s intent with respect to actions that gave rise to a prepetition judgment against the debtor. The court finds summary judgment in favor of the debtor is appropriate. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorney for Plaintiff: Noah R. Friend Law Firm, PLLC, Noah R. Friend

Attorney for Debtor: Daryle M. Ronning, James P. Pruitt, Jr.

Author: Matt Lindblom

2016-11-01-in-re-maynard

Cardwell v. Hester (In re Hester)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Oct. 11, 2016)

The bankruptcy court holds that the plaintiff’s claim is non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2), (4), and (6). The plaintiff and the debtor started a pawn business together. Shortly after it began operating the debtor was arrested on drug charges. The parties then gave conflicting testimony regarding various claims that arose in favor of the plaintiff against the debtor, including for a loan to post bond and theft from the plaintiff. The court finds that the plaintiff’s testimony was more credible and enters judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Opinion below.

Judge: Stout

Attorney for Debtor: Cooley & Offill, Robert A. Cooley, Jesse E. Offill

Attorney for Plaintiff: Steven L. Boling

2016-10-11-in-re-hester

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Mustafa

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. September 14, 2016)

Debtor obtained a personal loan from bank to buy a Mercedes at a car auction and represented to the loan officer that the car was for personal and family use. The day debtor received the loan proceeds he leased the car to his used car business, which then sold the car to debtor’s friend, an out of state resident. Debtor failed to satisfy the bank loan with the sales proceeds. Instead, his business used the proceeds to pay its debts. Also, the business never transferred title to the car to debtor’s friend in order to hide the fact that the car had been sold. Debtor continued to make a few loan payments to the bank, but eventually quit and filed Chapter 13, which is when the bank learned that the car had been sold. The bank filed a dischargeability action and the court found that debtor made material misrepresentations to obtain a consumer loan and never intended to use the car for personal use. Thus, the debt, including attorney’s fees, was nondischargeable pursuant to both §523(a)(2) and (a)(6). Also, debtor’s plan, in which he proposed to surrender the vehicle to the bank, was not confirmed and was found lacking in good faith since, among other things, the car was currently located out of state in a repair shop subject to a $10,000 mechanics lien. Opinion below.

Judge: Schaaf

Attorney for Debtor: Tom Bunch

Attorney for Creditor: Greg Pavey and Jessica Middendorf

Author: Robert Imperial

2016-09-14-in-re-mustafa