Diaz v. Castillo (In re Castillo)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Apr. 4, 2018)

The bankruptcy court denies the debtor’s motion to dismiss the nondischargeability complaint. The court finds that the complaint is a short, plain statement of the plaintiff’s claims, which constitute plausible claims upon which relief can be granted. Opinion below.

Judge: Carr

Attorney for Plaintiff: Randolph A. Leerkamp

Attorney for Debtor: Carey Law Office, Penny Lynn Carey

2018-04-04 – in re castillo

Author: Matt Lindblom

Indiana v. Owens (In re Owens)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Mar. 20, 2018)

The bankruptcy court holds that a fine for wrongful receipt of unemployment benefits is excepted from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7). However, the benefits received while the debtor worked under a certain contract were not excepted under § 523(a)(2) because the debtor established that he was confused by the government’s response to his question about whether he was “employed” if he was working pursuant to a coaching contract. Opinion below.

Judge: Carr

Attorney for Government: Megan Elizabeth Binder

Attorney for Debtor: Thomas H. Rothe

2018-03-20 – in re owens

Author: Matt Lindblom

Yusuf v. Oduyemi (In re Oduyemi)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Mar. 20, 2018)

The bankruptcy court finds in favor of the debtor in this nondischargeability action. The plaintiff alleged that the debtor had fraudulently taken funds from the plaintiff for the purchase of a vehicle that the debtor did not provide. The court finds that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient proof of the necessary intent under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6). Opinion below.

Judge: Carr

Attorney for Plaintiff: Carrie L. Breedlove

Debtor: Pro Se

2018-03-20 – in re oduyemi

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Challis

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Jan. 31, 2018)

The bankruptcy court grants the U.S. Trustee’s motion to dismiss pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 707(b)(1) and (2). The bankruptcy court concludes that the presumption of abuse arises based on the Debtors’ schedules and the submitted means test form. The debtors failed to rebut the presumption, despite their arguments that deductions to their monthly income should be made due to special circumstances. Opinion below.

Judge: Carr

Attorney for Debtors: Steven P. Taylor

2018-01-31 – in re challis

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Valentine Hill Farm LLC

(Bank. S.D. Ind. Jan. 25, 2018)

The bankruptcy court grants the debtor’s motion to dismiss the Chapter 12 case but bars the debtor from refiling a case under any chapter for 180 days. The debtor filed its motion after the trustee filed a motion to dismiss and for a 180-day refiling bar. The court concludes that the debtor has the right to dismiss its case under 11 U.S.C. § 1208(b), and thus the trustee’s motion must be denied. However, the court finds that the case was filed in bad faith and thus the Court can order the 180-day bar without motion under § 349(a). Opinion below.

Judge: Moberly

Attorney for Debtor: McClure O’Farrell, Thomas B. O’Farrell

Trustee: Joseph M. Black, Jr.

2018-01-25 – in re valentine hill farm

Author: Matt Lindblom

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