In re VanWinkle

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Oct. 4, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants in part the debtor’s motion to avoid a judicial lien on two parcels of real property. Applying the formula in 11 U.S.C. § 522(f), the court determines that the debtor’s exemption is impaired with respect to one parcel but not the other. Opinion below.

Judge: Schaaf

Attorneys for Debtor: Michael B. Baker, James R. Westenhoefer

Attorneys for Creditor: DelCotto Law Group PLLC, Sara A. Johnston

2017-10-04 – in re vanwinkle

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

In re Lexington Hospitality Group, LLC

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Sep. 15, 2017)

The bankruptcy court denies the lender’s motion to dismiss the Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The lender argued that the party signing the debtor’s petition did not have the requisite authority to commence a bankruptcy case for the debtor. The bankruptcy court finds that amendments to the debtor’s operating agreement were made for the sole purpose of eliminating the debtor’s ability to file for bankruptcy without the lender’s consent. The court finds this violates Federal public policy and the provisions are unenforceable. Opinion below.

Judge: Schaaf

Attorneys for Debtor: Laura Day DelCotto, Jamie L. Harris, Sara A. Johnston, DelCotto Law Group PLLC

Attorneys for Creditor: Martin B. Tucker, Sarah S. Mattingly, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP

2017-09-15 – in re lexington hospitality group

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Melcher

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Sep. 8, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the creditor’s motion to dismiss the Chapter 7 case because the debtor failed to rebut the “presumption of abuse.” The debtor argued she should be permitted to file under Chapter 7 because of special circumstances, pursuant to § 707(b)(2)(B). The debtor argued that she was a “stockbroker” and thus not eligible for Chapter 11 or 13. However, the court determines that she is not a stockbroker because she is merely an employee, rather than a stockbroker as defined by § 101. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorney for Debtor: Stuart P. Brown

Attorney for Creditor: Nicholas A. Zingarelli

2017-09-08 – in re melcher

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Penick

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Aug. 28, 2017)

The bankruptcy court denies confirmation of the debtors’ proposed Chapter 12 plan. The court first determines that the debtors’ timber operations constitute a “farming operation” under § 101(21). Those operations are ongoing rather than a single cut of all timber at one time. The debtors are eligible to proceed under Chapter 12. However, the debtors failed to provide sufficient evidence that the proposed plan was feasible. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorney for Debtors: Michael L. Baker

Attorneys for Creditor: Morgan & Pottinger, Scott T. Rickman

2017-08-28 – in re penick

Author: Matt Lindblom

Kendrick v. Rister (In re Rister)

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Aug. 4, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the motion to dismiss the trustee’s complaint. The court recently entered an order dismissing the trustee’s complaint for failure to state a claim but permitted the trustee leave to amend the complaint. See In re Rister. The amended complaint alleged that the vehicle became property of the estate because it was a proceed of the debtor’s contractual rights to the vehicle as of the petition date, whereas the original complaint alleged the vehicle itself was property of the estate on the petition date. The court finds that the fact that the debtor’s name was not on the certificate of title on the petition date is still dispositive. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorney for Trustee: Michael B. Baker

Attorneys for Defendants: Steffen Law Offices, Eric A. Steiden; Frost Brown Todd LLC, Paige Leigh Ellerman, Adam J. Webb; Aaron J. Nash; Patricia L. Johnson

2017-08-04 – in re rister

Author: Matt Lindblom

Ball v. United Cumberland Bank (In re Ball)

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. July 17, 2017)

The bankruptcy court dismisses the debtor’s complaint seeking to avoid a transfer to the bank defendant. The transfer consisted of the Bank exercising its contractual setoff right and applying funds in the debtor’s bank account to the Bank’s claim. The transfer occurred while the bankruptcy case was dismissed. The debtor fails to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Opinion below.

Judge: Schaaf

2017-07-17 – in re ball

Author: Matt Lindblom