In re Lynn

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Oct. 16, 2017)

The bankruptcy court overrules the Chapter 7 trustee’s objection to the debtor’s claimed exemption. The debtor moved to reopen her case, add a personal injury cause of action to her schedules, and claim an exemption in a portion of the recovery on the cause of action. The court holds that Law v. Siegel is applicable, and thus the court does not have authority to deny the exemption even if bad faith exists. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorney for Debtor: Darren K. Mexic

Trustee: Jerry Burns

2017-10-16 – in re lynn

Author: Matt Lindblom

Carroll v. Takada

(7th Cir. July 18, 2017)

The Seventh Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s order sustaining the trustee’s objection to the debtors’ $30,000 exemption in trust assets. The debtors argued the spendthrift provisions in the trust prevented the interest from becoming property of the estate. The court holds that the trust interest fully vested before the debtors filed bankruptcy. An exemption was inappropriate and the interest was property of the estate. Opinion below.

Judge: Sykes

Attorney for Debtors: Julia D. Mannix

Attorney for Trustee: Zane Zielinski

2017-07-18 – in re carroll

Author: Matt Lindblom

 

Holley v. Corcoran (In re Holley)

(6th Cir. Oct. 25, 2016)

The Sixth Circuit reverses the bankruptcy court’s order permitting the Chapter 7 trustee to be paid her administrative fee from proceeds of the sale of the debtors’ Michigan real property. The debtors claimed the Michigan exemption for real property they owned. The trustee sold the property, paid creditors, and then obtained an order from the court permitting her administrative fee to be paid from the remaining proceeds. The bankruptcy court reasoned that the debtors used the full benefit of the exemption by the trustee accepting a lower purchase price from the debtors’ preferred purchaser. The Michigan statute provides that the exemption covers sale proceeds, and the bankruptcy court incorrectly applied the statute. Opinion below.

Judge: Cook

Attorney for Debtors: Melonee L. Monson-Holley

Attorney for Trustee: Beadle Smith, Thomas L. Beadle

2016-10-25-in-re-holley

Author: Matt Lindblom

Wittman v. Koenig

(7th Cir. July 26, 2016)

The Seventh Circuit interprets a Wisconsin exemption statute applicable to annuity contracts. The statute provides that such a contract is exempt from assets available to creditors so long as it “complies with the provisions of the internal revenue code.” The trustee argued for a narrow interpretation of this language, while the Court ultimately agrees with the broader interpretation of the statute employed by Wisconsin bankruptcy courts. Opinion below.

Judge: Hamilton

Attorney for Debtors: Dewitt Ross & Stevens S.C., Craig E. Stevenson

Attorney for Trustee: Ruder Ware, Steven Martin Anderson

2016-07-26 – wittman v koenig

Author: Matt Lindblom

Bankr. N.D. Ind. Opinions

In re Radtke (Bankr. N.D. Ind. June 9, 2015) – Court sustains trustee’s objection to claimed exemption for real property because property sold on a land contract.

2015-06-09 – in re radtke

Hernandez v. Montgomery (In re Montgomery) (Bankr. N.D. Ind. June 10, 2015) – Court enters judgment in favor of debtor, finding debt dischargeable. The Debtor had failed to disclose that she did not yet own real property when she entered into contract to sell it to plaintiff, but that did not satisfy requirements for finding debt non dischargeable.

2015-06-10 – hernandez-gutierrez v montgomery

In re Sensibaugh (Bankr. N.D. Ind. July 21, 2015) – Court overrules debtor’s objection to claim that had been paid in full after the petition was filed. The court reasons that the claim is accurate as of the petition date and, even though it has been fully paid, it was properly filed.

2015-07-21 – in re sensibaugh

Author: Matt Lindblom

Neal v. First Alliance Bank

(Sixth Circuit July 9, 2014)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s denial of the Chapter 7 debtors’ claimed exemption in two annuities. In this brief opinion, the court adopts the district court’s reasoning that the annuities did not qualify under the Tennessee exemption statute relied upon by the debtors. Opinion below.

2014-07-09 – neal v first alliance bank