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

 

In re Stapp

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Aug. 21, 2017)

The bankruptcy court permits the creditor to file a 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(B) complaint. The creditor moved for leave to file its complaint because it had not received notice of the bankruptcy and the deadline for § 523 complaints had passed. The court finds that the debtor should have scheduled the creditor and that leave was not required given that § 523(a)(3)(B) allowed § 523 claims to be filed at any time if a creditor was not given proper notice of the bankruptcy filing. The court denies the motion with respect to the request to file a § 727 claim because the Bankruptcy Code does not contain a similar provision for those claims. Opinion below.

Judge: Moberly

Attorneys for Debtor: Tucker Legal Services, PC, William J. Tucker, Bradley J. Bucheit

Attorneys for Creditor: Riley Bennett Egloff LLP, Anthony R. Jost, Bryce H. Bennett, Jr.

2017-08-21 – in re stapp

Author: Matt Lindblom

Savino v. Dodd (In re Dodd)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. July 14, 2017)

The bankruptcy court denies the creditor’s motion for summary judgment in this nondischargeability action under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2), (4), and (6). The creditor argued the debtor should be collaterally estopped from defending based on a prepetition judgment entered against the debtor. The court concludes that the issues were not “fairly and fully litigated” in the state court, and thus summary judgment based on collateral estoppel is not appropriate. Opinion below.

Judge: Moberly

Attorneys for Plaintiff: Blackwell, Burke & Ramsey, P.C., David M. Bullington, Jason R. Burke

Attorneys for Debtor: Halcomb Singler, LLP, Erika K. Singler

2017-07-14 – in re dodd

Author: Matt Lindblom

Renner v. U.S. Bank National Association (In re Renner)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. June 26, 2017)

The bankruptcy court dismisses without prejudice the debtor’s complaint against a foreclosing creditor because the court concludes it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The debtor filed the complaint alleging numerous causes of action, including violations of the automatic stay. However, the alleged acts occurred at a time when the subject property was no longer property of the estate. Opinion below.

Judge: Carr

Attorneys for Debtor: Sabin, Shea & Des Jardines LLC, J. Andrew Sabin

Attorneys for Creditor: Rubin & Levin, Reynold T. Berry, Deborah Caruso, Ian Peter Goodman, Cassandra A. Nielsen, Meredith R. Theisen

2017-06-26 – in re renner

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Todd

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

The bankruptcy court grants the debtor’s motion, finding the Indiana Department of Workforce Development in contempt for violation of the debtor’s discharge. The department garnished the debtor’s wages post-discharge based on a claim that the debtor improperly received benefits from the department prepetition. The department argued it was collecting on a post-petition claim because it had not determined the debtor was liable until after the petition date. The court rejects that argument, finding the department had a prepetition claim because it was based on prepetition conduct of the debtor. The department’s date of finding of liability did not control. Opinion below.

Judge: Lorch

Attorneys for Debtor: Kinkade & Associates, P.C., Kevin S. Kinkade

Attorney for Department: Megan E. Binder

2017-04-24 – in re todd

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Dior

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Apr. 14, 2017)

The court grants the debtor’s motion for a hardship discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 1328(b)(1). The debtor had made 44 plan payments but was unable to make the 16 remaining payments. The court finds the recent change in the debtor’s economic circumstances warranted the relief requested. Opinion below.

Judge: Carr

Attorney for Debtor: Steven P. Taylor

2017-04-14 – in re dior

Author: Matt Lindblom

 

Community First Bank of Indiana v. Galyan (In re Galyan)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Apr. 13, 2017)

Following trial, the bankruptcy court enters judgment against the debtor, finding the loan debt owed to the bank is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B). The court finds that the debtor made false representations with respect to his ownership interest in real property and the existence of a debt owed, which representations were reasonably relied upon by the bank when making the loan. Opinion below.

Judge: Carr

Attorneys for Plaintiff: Riley Bennett & Egloff, LLP, Anthony R. Jost

Attorney for Defendant: KC Cohen

2017-04-13 – in re galyan

Author: Matt Lindblom