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

Gargula v. Cox (In re Cox)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Sep. 7, 2017)

The bankruptcy court enters judgment in favor of the debtor, granting a discharge in her bankruptcy case. The U.S. Trustee brought the action under § 727(a)(2)(B) and (a)(4)(A), alleging the debtor intentionally failed to disclose $5,000 she held in a lockbox on the petition date. The Court finds the debtor did not have the requisite intent and was unsure of what she was supposed to do at the 341 meeting based on a misunderstanding or miscommunication with her lawyer. Opinion below.

Judge: Carr

Attorney for U.S. Trustee: Jeanette Eisan Hinshaw

Attorney for Debtor: Joseph L. Mulvey

2017-09-07 – in re cox

Author: Matt Lindblom

 

Gresk v. Bulmer (In re Bulmer)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Feb. 10, 2017)

The bankruptcy court enters judgment in favor of the debtor on the trustee’s claims to avoid transfers of real property, but the court enters judgment in favor of the trustee on the claim under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4) and denies the debtor a discharge. The court finds that the debtor made a false oath on his statement of financial affairs with reckless disregard for the truth. The debtor had transferred property prior to his divorce but claimed those transfers were made as a result of the divorce. Opinion below.

Judge: Moberly

Attorney for Trustee: Randolph A. Leerkamp

Attorneys for Defendant: Allen Wellman McNew, Michael Clifford Cooley, Wolf Law Firm, LLC, Sarah Margaret Wolf

2017-02-10-in-re-bulmer

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re McWhorter

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

The bankruptcy court denied debtor’s discharge under Sections 727(a)(2) and (a)(4) at the request of the UST. Debtor failed to disclose a corvette, a motor home, and a boat and trailer on Schedule B, asserting they were sold to his father in January 2013, but the UST showed that transfer and certificate of title documentation was not executed until October 2014, just over a month before debtor filed bankruptcy. Debtor maintained possession of those assets. Debtor also failed to disclose his ownership of four complete sets of tickets for the 2014-2015 UK men’s basketball season, as well as numerous other assets. Debtor’s testimony on the status, ownership and disposition of all these assets was inconsistent and led to credibility issues according to the court. The court also discussed the UST’s claim under Section 727(a)(5). A March 2013 financial statement by debtor listed assets of $10.5 million, but his November 2014 petition identified just $415,000 in assets. Even though the court did not have to rely on the 727(a)(5) claim, as denial of discharge was already warranted under 727(a)(2) or (a)(4), the court noted a discussion of the UST’s 727(a)(5) claim was valuable as it supported the (a)(2) and (a)(4) claims.

Judge: Schaaf

Attorney for Debtor: Michael Baker

Attorney for UST: Bradley Nederman

Author: Robert K. Imperial

2016-09-14-in-re-mcwhorter

Gandy v. Schuchardt (In re Gandy)

(Sixth Circuit Apr. 7, 2016)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s judgment denying the debtor a discharge. The debtor made conflicting statements regarding his marital status and annual income in various filings. The creditor repeatedly objected, and then filed an action to deny the debtor a discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4). The court holds that the finding of the requisite intent was supported by the fact that the debtor relied on his false statements despite the creditor’s objections, and amended the filings only after the creditor filed the nondischargeability action. Opinion below.

Judge: Gibbons

Attorney for Debtor: John P. Newton

Creditor: Pro Se

2016-04-07 – in re gandy

Author: Matt Lindblom

Eifler v. Wilson & Muir Bank & Trust Co.

(6th Cir. Dec. 8, 2014)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the district court, which affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision to deny the individual debtor’s discharge under 11 U.S.C. §§ 727(a)(2)(A) and (a)(4). The court holds that the advice of counsel defense does not apply here because the debtor had not made full disclosure of all pertinent facts to his attorney. The debtor omitted numerous transfers and accounts from his schedules and had disposed of most of his assets prior to filing bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court’s factual finding of fraudulent intent was not clearly erroneous. Opinion below.

2014-12-08 – eifler v wilson and muir

Skavysh v. Katsman (In re Katsman)

(7th Cir. Nov. 19, 2014)

The Seventh Circuit holds the debtor’s discharge should be denied, affirming the district court’s reversal of the bankruptcy court’s ruling in favor of the debtor in the nondischargebility action. The Chapter 7 debtor had omitted certain creditors from her Schedule F. She testified at trial that she had done so because she intended to pay those creditors (friends and family members) on their claims after the bankruptcy. The creditor-plaintiff sought denial of her discharge under § 727(a)(4)(A), alleging the omissions (and other discrepancies in her schedules) constituted her knowingly and fraudulently making a false oath or account in the case. The Seventh Circuit held that this satisfied the statute, even though her fraudulent acts were not to her pecuniary benefit. Opinion below.

2014-11-19 – skavysh v katsman