Ryan v. Morris (In re Morris)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Dec. 19, 2017)

The bankruptcy court enters judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, holding the debt owed to them is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6), and holding that the debtors should be denied a discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(3) and (a)(4). The debtors borrowed funds from the plaintiffs for real estate investments but failed to fully disclose how the funds were being used and used proceeds from sales for unauthorized purchases. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Kerrick Bachert PSC, Scott A. Bachert, Ashley Gerughty

Attorneys for Debtors: Mark H. Flener, Alicia C. Johnson

2017-12-19 – in re morris

Author: Matt Lindblom

Gresk v. Bulmer (In re Bulmer)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Feb. 10, 2017)

The bankruptcy court enters judgment in favor of the debtor on the trustee’s claims to avoid transfers of real property, but the court enters judgment in favor of the trustee on the claim under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4) and denies the debtor a discharge. The court finds that the debtor made a false oath on his statement of financial affairs with reckless disregard for the truth. The debtor had transferred property prior to his divorce but claimed those transfers were made as a result of the divorce. Opinion below.

Judge: Moberly

Attorney for Trustee: Randolph A. Leerkamp

Attorneys for Defendant: Allen Wellman McNew, Michael Clifford Cooley, Wolf Law Firm, LLC, Sarah Margaret Wolf

2017-02-10-in-re-bulmer

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re McWhorter

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Sept. 14, 2016)

The bankruptcy court denied debtor’s discharge under Sections 727(a)(2) and (a)(4) at the request of the UST. Debtor failed to disclose a corvette, a motor home, and a boat and trailer on Schedule B, asserting they were sold to his father in January 2013, but the UST showed that transfer and certificate of title documentation was not executed until October 2014, just over a month before debtor filed bankruptcy. Debtor maintained possession of those assets. Debtor also failed to disclose his ownership of four complete sets of tickets for the 2014-2015 UK men’s basketball season, as well as numerous other assets. Debtor’s testimony on the status, ownership and disposition of all these assets was inconsistent and led to credibility issues according to the court. The court also discussed the UST’s claim under Section 727(a)(5). A March 2013 financial statement by debtor listed assets of $10.5 million, but his November 2014 petition identified just $415,000 in assets. Even though the court did not have to rely on the 727(a)(5) claim, as denial of discharge was already warranted under 727(a)(2) or (a)(4), the court noted a discussion of the UST’s 727(a)(5) claim was valuable as it supported the (a)(2) and (a)(4) claims.

Judge: Schaaf

Attorney for Debtor: Michael Baker

Attorney for UST: Bradley Nederman

Author: Robert K. Imperial

2016-09-14-in-re-mcwhorter

Gandy v. Schuchardt (In re Gandy)

(Sixth Circuit Apr. 7, 2016)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s judgment denying the debtor a discharge. The debtor made conflicting statements regarding his marital status and annual income in various filings. The creditor repeatedly objected, and then filed an action to deny the debtor a discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4). The court holds that the finding of the requisite intent was supported by the fact that the debtor relied on his false statements despite the creditor’s objections, and amended the filings only after the creditor filed the nondischargeability action. Opinion below.

Judge: Gibbons

Attorney for Debtor: John P. Newton

Creditor: Pro Se

2016-04-07 – in re gandy

Author: Matt Lindblom

National Labor Relations Board v. Calvert (In re Calvert)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Dec. 21, 2015)

The court enters judgment in this adversary proceeding commenced by the NLRB against the debtor, seeking to except from discharge the debt owed to the NLRB. The claim was based on alleged violations of the National Labor Relations Act, when the debtor took steps to avoid his company’s employees from unionizing. The court finds that the NLRB failed to prove the requisite intent under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) and the information omitted from the schedules and in the bankruptcy (e.g., lost promissory notes) did not rise to the level of a denial of discharge under § 727. Opinion below.

2015-12-21 – nlrb v calvert

Author: Matt Lindblom

Simmons v. Crossroads Bank

(N.D. Ind. June 22, 2015)

The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s order denying the debtor a discharge for making false oaths in connection with his bankruptcy case. The debtor failed to list a number of assets and transactions in his schedules and statement of financial affairs. The creditor filed the complaint to deny the discharge and then amended the complaint well after the deadline for filing such complaints. The debtor argued the amendments should not have been allowed. The court recognizes the narrower standard for amendments to relate back to the original complaint in denial of discharge proceedings, but it holds that here the amendments merely listed additional omissions from the debtor’s filings and served as additional support for the original claim, and thus should relate back to the original filing date. The court also finds that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in finding the debtor had the requisite intent. Opinion below.

2015-06-22 – simmons v crossroads bank

Author: Matt Lindblom