Edmondson v. Gordon (In re Gordon)

(6th Cir. B.A.P. May 18, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s contempt order, but remands the matter for the limited purpose of providing the debtor sufficient notice and an opportunity to be heard on the issue of whether monetary sanctions were reasonable. The debtor sold property of the estate in direct violation of the bankruptcy court’s order. The bankruptcy court held the debtor in contempt and awarded the trustee his attorney fees as a sanction. However, the hearing notice for the contempt order did not make clear that monetary sanctions could be entered against the pro se debtor. Opinion below.

Judge: Opperman

Appellant: Pro Se

Attorney for Appellee: Thompson Burton PLLC, Phillip G. Young, Jr.

2017-05-18 – in re gordon

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