Church Joint Venture, L.P. v. Montedonico (In re Blasingame)

(6th Cir. B.A.P. Jan. 21, 2015)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. denies the appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal. The bankruptcy court entered an order sanctioning the debtor’s attorney but reserving the issue of the amount of the monetary sanctions. The attorney filed a notice of appeal of this first order. The bankruptcy court then entered two orders setting the sanction amount. The attorney then filed a corrected notice of appeal to include these two orders outside the normal 14-day appeal notice period. The appellee argued that the first notice was deficient because the first order was not final and appealable and the second notice was filed too long after the second set of orders. The court holds that the first order was not final, but the corrected notice of appeal was sufficient and timely. The second set of orders did not satisfy Rule 58 (incorporated by Bankruptcy Rule 7058) in that they were not set out in a “separate document,” and thus the attorney had an additional 150 days in which to file a notice of appeal of those orders. Opinion below.

2015-01-21 – church joint venture v montedonico

Author: Matt Lindblom

Kraus Anderson Capital v. Bradley (In re Bradley)

(6th Cir. Dec. 10, 2014)

The Sixth Circuit dismisses the appeal from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The bankruptcy court ruled in the nondischargeability adversary proceeding that the creditor’s claims were dischargeable, and the creditor appealed to the BAP. The BAP reversed, holding that the bankruptcy court incorrectly applied 11 U.S.C. § 523, and remanded for further proceedings on damages. The debtor then appealed to the Sixth Circuit. The court recognizes that it only has jurisdiction to consider final orders from the BAP. The BAP’s order was not final, as it remanded to the bankruptcy court to consider further evidence. Opinion below.

2014-12-10 – kraus anderson v bradley

Spradlin v. Williams (In re Alma Energy, LLC)

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Oct. 21, 2014)

The Sixth Circuit had determined that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction over the adversary complaint. That determination was the result of an appeal of one of two judgments entered in the adversary proceeding. The bankruptcy court, in what appears to be a case of first impression, concludes that the judgment that was not appealed should stand because there was an arguable basis for jurisdiction at the time it was entered as to some of the counts. The court sets aside its judgment as to the counts for which it did not have an arguable basis for jurisdiction. The lengthy opinion (48 pages) is below.

2014-10-21 – in re alma energy llc

Seamster v. Chael

(N.D. Ind. Oct. 14, 2014)

The district court dismisses the pro se chapter 13 debtor’s appeal for failure to pay the appeal filing fee, because the subject order was not a final appealable order, because the subject order was later vacated, and because the debtor failed to timely file a brief in support of the appeal. Opinion below.

2014-14-14 – seamster v chael

Buridi v KMC Real Estate Investors, LLC (In re KMC Real Estate Investors, LLC)

(S.D. Ind. Sep. 29, 2014)

The district court denies the debtors’ motions to dismiss the appeal. The doctor appealed the confirmation of the two confirmed chapter 11 plans, arguing equity distributions to four doctors were not compliant with certain federal healthcare laws. The debtors moved to dismiss the appeal based on substantial consummation of the plans. The court found that the plans had indeed been substantially consummated, but the appeal, if successful, would only affect the insider distributions and would not likely have any effect on third parties’ rights under the plan. Thus, the appeal can proceed. Opinion below.

2014-09-29 – in re kmc real estate investors, llc

Kentucky Employees Retirement System v. Seven Counties Services, Inc. (In re Seven Counties Services, Inc.)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Sep. 24, 2014)

The bankruptcy court declines to recommend that the Sixth Circuit authorize a direct appeal of the court’s decision finding KERS is not a governmental unit and finding that the debtor may reject its executory contract with KERS. The court recognizes that this is a matter of public importance, but a direct appeal will not advance the progress of the bankruptcy case. Thus, the court does not recommend authorization of the direct appeals. Opinion below.

2014-09-24 – in re seven counties services

Schwab v. Oscar (In re SII Liquidation Company)

(6th Cir. B.A.P. Sep. 15, 2014)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s denial of a motion for relief from judgment. The movants were shareholders of the debtor corporation, which had asserted malpractice claims against the debtor’s bankruptcy attorneys. Those claims had been dismissed based on the movants’ lack of standing. One year later, the movants filed the motion for relief from that judgment, asserting new evidence of a conflict of interest in support of the motion. The court finds that the movant’s lack of standing is still dispositive, even if new evidence had surfaced, because the movant failed to appeal the earlier judgment. Opinion below.

2014-09-15 – in re sii liquidation

Council on Occupational Education, Inc. v. Keats (In re Decker College, Inc.)

(6th Cir. Sep. 4, 2014)

The Sixth Circuit dismisses the Council’s appeal of the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s finding that the Council had made “factually erroneous” statements to the Department of Education when it stated that it had not approved certain programs of the debtor college. The district court had remanded to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings. Because the district court’s order was not final and no request for certification under Civil Rule 54(b) or 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) had been made, the Sixth Circuit did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Opinion below.

2014-09-04 – in re decker college

Lea v. Farmers National Bank

(W.D. Ky. Aug. 6, 2014)

The district court dismisses the debtor’s appeal of the bankruptcy court’s determination that the automatic stay did not prevent the bank from proceeding with a foreclosure sale of property owned by the debtor’s corporation, which had not filed bankruptcy. The debtor had filed an amended schedule listing his corporation as an “alias” in an attempt to prevent the sale, but the bankruptcy court struck the amendment and then dismissed the bankruptcy due to the debtor’s failure to timely submit a proposed Chapter 13 plan. The district court agreed with the bankruptcy court’s decision regarding the inapplicability of the automatic stay and dismissed the appeal because the bankruptcy proceeding had been dismissed. Opinion below.

2014-08-06 – lea v farmers national bank