National Labor Relations Board v. Calvert

(S.D. Ind. Mar. 31, 2017)

The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s ruling in favor of the debtor in the nondischargeability action. The NLRB argued its claim against the debtor should be denied under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). The court holds that the prepetition administrative ruling finding the debtor acted out of “antiunion animus” did not necessarily satisfy the  requisite intent required under § 523(a)(6). Collateral estoppel did not apply. Opinion below.

Judge: Barker

Attorneys for NLRB: Dalford D. Owens , Jr., William R. Warwick

Attorneys for Debtor: Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Dustin R. DeNeal, Harmony A. Mappes

2017-03-31 – national labor relations board v calvert

Author: Matt Lindblom

Harris v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (In re Harris)

(S.D. Ind. Feb. 8, 2016)

The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s decision holding that the debtor was collaterally estopped from challenging the amount of the mortgage lender’s claim. The lender had obtained judgment in a prepetition state court foreclosure action, in which the debtor had presented the same arguments regarding the loan balance calculation. The district court finds that the doctrine of collateral estoppel applies and the claim amount could not be re-litigated in the bankruptcy. Opinion below.

2016-02-08 – in re harris

Author: Matt Lindblom

Golson-Dunlap v. HSBC Capital (USA), Inc. (In re Garrison)

(S.D. Ind. Feb. 5, 2016)

The district court grants the unopposed motion to withdraw the reference and the motion to dismiss the adversary proceeding with prejudice. The court discusses the standard for withdrawal motions, and finds that the standard is met here. The claims arise out of a contractual relationship outside the bankruptcy and would not be resolved through the claims resolution process. Thus, the bankruptcy court could not issue a final judgment in the matter absent the movant’s consent. Opinion below.

2016-02-05 – in re garrison

Author: Matt Lindblom

Lynn v. Pry

(S.D. Ind. Feb. 3, 2016)

The district court affirms the judgment of the bankruptcy court, avoiding the post-petition transfer of real property. The debtor’s father had transferred real estate to the debtor’s entity prior to the bankruptcy to avoid attachment by creditors. Post-petition, the debtor’s father recorded a deed transferring title back to himself. The father claimed that it was never his or the debtor’s intent for the debtor to have title to the property. The fact that title was transferred to avoid the father’s creditors was sufficient evidence of intent to transfer title, and thus the post-petition transfer from the estate was improper. Opinion below.

2016-02-03 – lynn v pry

Author: Matt Lindblom

Platt v. CitiMortgage, Inc.

(S.D. Ind. Feb. 2, 2016)

The district court grants the creditor’s motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely. The pro se debtors filed their notice of appeal of a stay relief order three days after the 14-day period per Bankruptcy Rule 8002 had expired. The debtors’ argument that the motion for relief from stay was not served upon them properly was not supported by the record and even if the allegations were true, they failed to explain the untimeliness of the notice of appeal after the order granting stay relief was entered. Opinion below.

2016-02-02 – platt v citimortgage

Author: Matt Lindblom

Lynn v. Pry

(S.D. Ind. Nov. 13, 2015)

The district court denies the trustee’s motion to dismiss the appeal for numerous procedural errors committed by the appellants. The court describes errors including missed deadlines, improper brief formatting, and ECF filing errors. The court finds that it is a “close call” but the appellants’ attorney’s explanations support a finding of excusable neglect, and thus dismissal is not appropriate. Opinion below.

2015-11-13 – lynn v pry

Author: Matt Lindblom

Gilliland v. Fifth Third Mortgage Company

(S.D. Ind. Sep. 30, 2015)

The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing the pro se debtor’s chapter 13 bankruptcy case and a related adversary proceeding and denying the debtor’s motions for relief from judgment. The debtor had no income and therefore could not be a Chapter 13 debtor. Opinion below.

2015-09-30 – gilliland v fifth third mortgage

Author: Matt Lindblom

Central Mortgage Company v. Murry (In re Burger)

(S.D. Ind. Sep. 21, 2015)

The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s decision determining the winning bidder at an auction of estate property. The secured lender argues it submitted a credit bid that was higher than the successful bid. However, the secured lender failed to communicate a credit bid to the auctioneer, and the emails to the auctioneer’s alleged agent were insufficient to overcome the auctioneer’s determination of the successful bid at the auction. Opinion below.

2015-09-21 – in re burger

Author: Matt Lindblom

Lee Group Holding Company, LLC v. Walro (In re Lee)

(S.D. Ind. Aug. 10, 2015)

The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s order granting the trustee’s motion for summary judgment and finding that the debtor’s voting rights in the non-debtor Indiana limited liability company were property of the estate. The other members of the LLC argued that the debtor did not hold an interest that could be property of the estate, because his voting rights derived from his role as manager rather than a membership interest in the LLC. Applying Indiana law and interpreting the language of the operating agreement, the court disagrees and affirms. Opinion below.

2015-08-10 – lee group holding company v walro

Author: Matt Lindblom

Buridi v. KMC Real Estate Investors, LLC (In re KMC Real Estate Investors, LLC)

(S.D Ind. May 8, 2015)

The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s confirmation of the Chapter 11 plans. The appellant made numerous objections, including an objection that the plan’s provisions giving four individuals ownership interests in the debtor-hospital violated federal healthcare statutes. The district court rejects the appellant’s arguments and affirms confirmation. Opinion below.

2015-05-08 – buridi v kmc real estate investors

Author: Matt Lindblom