Whirlpool Corporation v. HHGreg, Inc. (In re HHGregg, Inc.)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Dec. 4, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the motion to dismiss, finding the defendant’s security interest in the debtor’s assets, including its inventory, has priority over the plaintiff’s reclamation rights. The plaintiff sold goods to the debtor up to the petition date and sought either return of the goods delivered within the reclamation period or recovery of the proceeds from the sale of such goods. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 546(c), the Court finds the reclamation rights are subordinate and the complaint should be dismissed. Opinion below.

Judge: Jeffrey J. Graham

Attorneys for Plaintiff: Warner Norcross & Judd LLP, Robert Michael Azzi, Stephen B. Grow, Janet L. Ramsey; Rubin & Levin, P.C., Joshua W. Casselman, James E. Rossow, Jr.

Attorneys for Defendants: Ice Miller LLP, Adam Arceneaux, Sarah Lynn Fowler, Jeffrey A. Hokanson; Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Andrew Joseph Gallo, Neil E. Herman; Choate Hall & Stewart LLP, Mark D. Cahill, Sean Monahan, John Ventola; Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Terry E. Hall, Jay Jaffe; DLA Piper LLP, David E. Avraham, Stuart M. Brown, Jeffrey Scott Torosian

2017-12-04 – in re hhgregg

Author: Matt Lindblom

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

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Oct. 20, 2017)

The bankruptcy court dismisses the debtor’s complaint against the lender, which asserted claims related to the lender’s foreclosure of its mortgage lien in state court. The court dismisses the stay violation claim, because the property was not property of the estate at the time of the alleged acts, and dismisses the remaining claims because the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Opinion below.

Judge: Carr

Attorney for Debtor: Sawin, Shea & Des Jardines LLC, J. Andrew Sawin

Attorneys for Defendant: Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Tammara Danielle Porter

2017-10-20 – in re renner

Author: Matt Lindblom

Harlan v. Nebraska Alliance Realty Company (In re Harlan)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Oct. 19, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants summary judgment in favor of the county in this § 542 turnover action. The case involves a matter of first impression regarding a Chapter 13 debtor’s rights in the tax surplus fund provided for in Ind. Code § 6-1.1-24-7. The court determines the debtor had two options as of the petition date: (1) exercise the right of redemption by the statutory deadline or (2) allow the redemption period to expire, divest herself of the property, and then make a claim against the tax surplus fund. As of the petition date, the debtor only holds a contingent interest in the tax surplus fund, and thus an order directing turnover of the fund is inappropriate. Opinion below.

Judge: Moberly

Attorney for Debtor: Steven P. Taylor

Attorney for Defendants: Scott R. Richards, Katherine A. Starks; Douglas J. DeGlopper

2017-10-19 – in re harlan

Author: Matt Lindblom

Brooks v. Key Bank (In re Brooks

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

The bankruptcy court grants the university’s motion for summary judgment, determining that the student loan debt is nondischargeable. The debtor filed the adversary proceeding alleging repayment would present an undue hardship. The debtor did not respond to the university’s motion and failed to present any evidence to satisfy the Brunner test. Opinion below.

Judge: Carr

Attorney for Debtor: Eric C. Redman, Redman Ludwig PC

Attorney for University: Constantine Alexander Hortis, Maryland Attorney General

2017-09-14 – in re brooks

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

 

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