(N.D. Ind. Dec. 22, 2016)
The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s order lifting the stay to permit the creditor to proceed with the real property foreclosure action. The debtor failed to provide factual or legal support for his claims of fraud by the creditor. Opinion below.
Judge: Miller
Plaintiff: Pro Se
Attorneys for Defendants: Dykema Gossett PLLC, Jordan S. Huttenlocker, Louis S. Chronowski
2016-12-22-hollowell-v-jpmorgan-chase
Author: Matt Lindblom
(N.D. Ind. Apr. 5, 2016)
The district court grants the defendants’ motion to dismiss the appeal for being untimely. The debtor filed his notice of appeal outside the 14-day period. Upon the defendants’ motion to dismiss the appeal, the debtor filed a motion to extend the deadline to file the notice of appeal, but that motion was also untimely. Opinion below.
Judge: Simon
Debtor: Pro Se
Attorneys for Defendants: Dykema Gossett PLLC, Louis S. Chronowski, Maria A. Diakoumakis
2016-04-05 – hollowell v chase home finance
Author: Matt Lindblom
(N.D. Ind. Dec. 16, 2015)
The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s decision finding that the creditor’s assertion of a counterclaim for unpaid rent in the state court action filed by the debtor for return of a security deposit after discharge was not a violation of the stay or the discharge injunction. Opinion below.
Author: Matt Lindblom
(N.D. Ind. Aug. 11, 2015)
The district court grants appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal. The pro se appellant failed to file an appellate brief by the deadline and failed to explain that failure in response to the motion to dismiss the appeal. Opinion below.
2015-08-11 – mileusnic v planet home lending
Author: Matt Lindblom
(N.D. Ind. June 26, 2015)
The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s approval of the attorney fee application. The law firm was retained by the trustee to pursue a 11 U.S.C. § 363(n) claim against the purchaser of the chapter 11 debtor’s assets for colluding with bidders to set the sale price. The defendant argued the award of attorney fees was inappropriate because they were not incurred for services “reasonably likely to benefit the debtor’s estate,” as a secured creditor had a lien on the property sold and thus should have recovered any difference between the sale price and the actual value of the property sold. The court holds that the recovery would be “after acquired property” under § 552(a) and thus property of the estate. As such, the attorney fees were incurred to benefit the debtor’s estate. Opinion below.
2015-06-26 – arlington capital llc v bainton mccarthy llc
Author: Matt Lindblom
(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
(N.D. Ind. Feb. 4, 2015)
In this consolidated appeal of four single asset real estate chapter 11 cases, the district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s denial of the secured creditor’s motion for stay relief. The debtors had proposed plans that consolidated claims against the separate debtors into a single class of claims. The bankruptcy court held the plans were unconfirmable with such a provision, although it was an issue of first impression. The debtor then appealed, proposed new plans without the consolidation provision, then dismissed the appeal. The creditor sought stay relief under § 362(d)(3), arguing that the debtor had not proposed a plan with a reasonable possibility of being confirmed within the timeframe of § 362(d)(3). The court holds that the debtor satisfied the requirements and stay relief was appropriately denied. The first proposed plan had a reasonable possibility of being confirmed following appeal, and the debtors’ decision to file new plans outside the timeframe actually expedited the reorganization process. Opinion below.
2015-02-04 – mb financial bank v t-l conyers llc
Author: Matt Lindblom
(N.D. Ind. Jan. 26, 2015)
The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s order denying the creditor’s request for an award of attorney fees to be paid by the Chapter 13 debtor. The bankruptcy court had ordered the creditor to submit detailed invoices for the fees to be reviewed for reasonableness. The creditor failed to do so before the deadline. The court holds that the creditor failed to meet its burden of showing the fees were reasonable. Opinion below.
2015-01-26 – carrington at stonebridge v galanos
Author: Matt Lindblom
(N.D. Ind. Dec. 15, 2014)
The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant bank. The debtor filed her chapter 7 petition after the bank had commenced state court foreclosure proceedings. The debtor received a discharge and the bankruptcy was closed. The bank then dismissed the state court action and filed a second action seeking only an in rem judgment. The bank obtained an in rem judgment, which was appealed by the debtor. After the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, the debtor moved to re-open the bankruptcy and filed an adversary proceeding against the bank, alleging violations of the discharge injunction. The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment, finding no evidence of a violation. The bank was permitted to seek the in rem judgment following the debtor’s discharge (despite the debtor’s arguments to the contrary). The district court affirmed on the same grounds. Opinion below.
(N.D. Ind Nov. 14, 2014)
The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s decision to revoke the debtor’s discharge pursuant to § 727(d)(1), (2), and (3). The debtor obtained a tax refund and transferred the bulk of it ($6,400) from her bank account to a relative’s account in the days leading up to the filing of her chapter 7 petition. The refund and transfer were not disclosed to the trustee. The trustee repeatedly requested copies of her bank account statement for the three months leading up to the bankruptcy, among other documents, but the debtor refused to produce the documents despite entry of an agreed order compelling their production more than a year after the 341 meeting. The documents were eventually produced before trial. The district court held the bankruptcy court’s order revoking the discharge was appropriate—the debtor failed to comply with a court order, fraudulently obtained her discharge, and fraudulently failed to report property of the estate. Opinion below.
Kentuckiana Bankruptcy Opinions 