Coslow v. Reisz (In re Coslow)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. July 28, 2017)

The bankruptcy court enters summary judgment in favor of the debtor and orders the trustee to abandon any interest in the debtor’s residence. As of the petition date there was no equity in the property due to the balance on two mortgages. After the petition date, due to postpetition payments on the second mortgage, significant equity in the property was created. The trustee argued the equity was property of the estate. The court, however, holds that the debtor is entitled to such postpetition equity. As of the petition date, the property was of inconsequential value to the estate and thus should be abandoned. Opinion below.

Judge: Stout

Attorneys for Debtor: Seiler Waterman LLC, David M. Cantor, William P. Harbison, Keith J. Larson

Attorneys for Trustee: Tilford, Dobbins & Schmidt, PLLC, William Stephen Reisz

2017-07-28 – in re coslow

Author: Matt Lindblom

Jahn v. Burke (In re Burke)

(6th Cir. July 14, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s order granting the debtors’ motion to compel the Chapter 7 trustee to abandon their residential real property. The trustee sought to evict the debtors in order to sell the property and pay creditors. The trustee argued that because he tendered the homestead exemption payment to the debtors, eviction should be permitted. The debtors argued and presented evidence to establish that there was no equity for the estate considering the condition of the property. Opinion below.

Judge: Gilman

Attorneys for Debtors: William Thomas Bible, Jr., William P. Glascock, Jr.

Attorneys for Trustee: Richard Palmer Jahn, Jr., Nancy A. Cogar

2017-07-14 – in re burke

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Wright

(6th Cir. B.A.P. April 17, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. reverses the bankruptcy court’s finding that a personal injury claim was not abandoned, but affirms the finding that a second claim was not abandoned. The debtor listed the personal injury claim in his schedules, but not the second claim. The trustee filed a notice of no distribution, noting that the personal injury claim was not abandoned. The case was closed, and the trustee later moved to reopen the case to settle the personal injury claim. The court holds that because the trustee did not obtain an order preventing abandonment upon closing the case, the claim was abandoned under 11 U.S.C. § 554. The bankruptcy court correctly held that the unscheduled claim was not automatically abandoned upon closing the case pursuant to § 554(d). Opinion below.

Judge: Harrison

Attorney for Debtor: Gino Pulito

Attorney for Trustee: Lauren A. Helbing

2017-04-17 – in re wright

Author: Matt Lindblom

 

 

Sturgeon v. Hart County Finance, LLC (In re Sturgeon)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Nov. 20, 2015)

The bankruptcy court grants the defendant’s motion to dismiss the adversary proceeding because it lacks jurisdiction over the claim asserted. The debtor listed the claim in his schedules, but the trustee effectively abandoned the claim upon filing his report of no distribution. The debtor then filed the adversary proceeding. The court finds that there is no “related to” jurisdiction because the claim was abandoned, outside the estate, and owned by the debtor. Opinion below.

2015-11-20 – sturgeon v hart county finance

Author: Matt Lindblom

Robinson v. Manufactured Housing Contract Senior/Subordinate Pass Through Certificate Trust 1999-5 (In re Robinson)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Dec. 17, 2014)

The bankruptcy court dismisses the lien avoidance action for lack of jurisdiction. The defendant obtained an order abandoning the trustee’s interest in and granting stay relief with respect to the debtors’ manufactured home on which the defendant claimed a lien. The debtors then filed the adversary proceeding, seeking to avoid the lien for failure to properly perfect the lien, and filed a motion to reconsider the court’s order granting stay relief. The court granted the motion to reconsider, leaving the stay in place pending further orders of the court. The defendant moved to dismiss the adversary proceeding, arguing the debtors did not have standing to pursue the avoidance action. The court granted the motion, but did so on the basis that it had ordered the trustee’s interest in the property abandoned. Thus, because the property was abandoned and no longer property of the estate, the court had no jurisdiction over it. Opinion below.

2014-12-17 – robinson v manufactured housing contract