(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.
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
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Sep. 9, 2015)
The bankruptcy court denies the plaintiff’s motion for mandatory abstention under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2). The plaintiff brought an action in state court alleging ownership of funds that were distributed to two purchasers of a debtor’s assets in bankruptcy. The defendants removed the case to the district court and the district court referred the case to the bankruptcy court because it was related to the bankruptcy case. The bankruptcy court determines that the majority of plaintiff’s claims are core claims and the others are inextricably intertwined with the core claims. Thus, the motion is denied. Opinion below.
2015-09-09 – giese v community trust bank
Author: Matt Lindblom
(Sixth Circuit Nov. 26, 2014)
The Sixth Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s disallowance of the creditor’s claim. The creditor filed a proof of claim in response to the individual chapter 11 debtor’s adversary proceeding against him. The proof of claim asserted a claim against the estate based on the debtor’s alleged violation of Florida securities laws. The creditor argued on appeal that the bankruptcy court did not have the authority to rule on his claim because it was a non-core issue. The Sixth Circuit disagrees, holding that the bankruptcy court’s ruling in the adversary proceeding was essentially a ruling on the allowance or disallowance of a claim against the estate, which is a core issue as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). Thus, the bankruptcy court properly ruled on the claim in the adversary proceeding. The Sixth Circuit also agreed with the bankruptcy court’s finding that the debtor had not violated Florida securities laws. Opinion below.
2014-11-26 – in re bavelis