Nicholson v. Hyundai Capital America, Inc.

(W.D. Ky. May 2, 2017)

The district court denies the debtor’s motion to withdraw the referral of one count of her complaint to the bankruptcy court. The defendant had filed a motion with the bankruptcy court seeking to have the count dismissed because it was not a core claim. The debtor then sought an order withdrawing the reference to avoid litigating the jurisdictional question. The district court declines to grant the motion, stating that the bankruptcy court should rule on the motion to dismiss, as it has jurisdiction to consider the issue presented with the motion. Opinion below.

Judge: Russell

Attorneys for Plaintiff/Debtor: Whitford & Neuhauser, Ross B. Neuhauser

Attorneys for Defendants: Reimer Law Co., Dennis Mark Ostrowski; Smith, Rolfes & Skavdahl, Co., LPA, Neil P. Baine

2017-05-02 – in re nicholson

Author: Matt Lindblom

Halifax Financial Group L.P. v. Hazel (In re Hazel)

(S.D. Ind. Feb. 27, 2017)

The district court dismisses the appeal because the bankruptcy court’s order was not final and appealable. The creditor had filed an emergency motion for stay relief to proceed with acquiring title to the debtor’s real property through Indiana’s tax sale and tax deed procedures. The bankruptcy court denied the motion without prejudice. The district court holds that the bankruptcy court’s order was not final, in part because it was without prejudice and appeared to be a preliminary decision. Opinion below.

Judge: Young

Attorneys for Creditor: Harrison & Moberly, David J. Theising

Attorneys for Debtor: Tom Scott & Associates, PC, Jess M. Smith, III

2017-02-27-in-re-hazel

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Sobczak-Slomczewski

(7th Cir. June 13, 2016)

The Seventh Circuit holds that Bankruptcy Rule 8002(a)’s 14-day time limit for filing a notice of appeal is jurisdictional. Thus, the debtor’s appeal was properly dismissed because it was filed on the fifteenth day after entry of the order. While this court had clearly held the rule was jurisdictional in prior opinions, it revisited the issue in light of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Bowles v. Russell (2007) and Kontrick v. Ryan (2004). The court finds that the rule is not merely a claim-processing rule as described in those opinions. Opinion below.

Appellant: Pro Se

Attorneys for Appellee: Meltzer, Purtill & Steele LLC, David L. Kane, Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek S.C., Jeffrey McIntyre

2016-06-13 – in re sobczak-slomczewski

Author: Matt Lindblom

Church Joint Venture, L.P. v. Blasingame (In re Blasingame)

(6th Cir. June 6, 2016)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the B.A.P. and dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Following the principal creditor’s objection, the bankruptcy court denied the trustee and debtors’ motion to approve a settlement of a legal malpractice claim held by the estate. The debtors appealed. The court finds that the appealed order was not a final order that could be appealed because the debtors were free to propose a new settlement for approval. Opinion below.

Judge: Kethledge

Attorneys for Debtors: Evans Petree, David J. Cocke, Glankler Brown, Michael P. Coury

Attorneys for Appellees: Cantey Hanger, Bruce W. Akerly

2016-06-07 – in re blasingame

Author: Matt Lindblom

Siragusa v. Collazo (In re Collazo)

(7th Cir. Apr. 5, 2016)

The Seventh Circuit affirms the decision of the bankruptcy court dismissing some of the creditors’ nondischargeability claims because the claims were based on alleged fraud occurring outside the applicable Illinois five-year limitations period. The court reverses the dismissal of one of the claims because it was not clear that the creditor had notice of the fraud to start the limitations period. The court also remands so that a money judgment can be entered, as the bankruptcy court’s concerns that it did not have jurisdiction to do so were addressed in the Supreme Court’s Wellness and Arkison decisions. Opinion below.

Judge: Posner

Attorney for Debtor: David Robert Herzog

Attorney for Creditors: Patrick Gerard Cooke

2016-04-05 – in re collazo

Author: Matt Lindblom

Schaumburg Bank & Trust Co., N.A. v. Alsterda

(7th Cir. Mar. 4, 2016)

The Seventh Circuit dismisses the appeal because the order appealed from was not a final order. The bankruptcy court overruled the creditor’s objection to the trustee’s motion to approve a settlement of a fraudulent transfer claim. The creditor had obtained a state court judgment on the same claim after obtaining stay relief (although not expressly for pursuing that claim). The court holds that the order addressed a discrete issue rather than a discrete dispute and thus was not a final and appealable order. The creditor could still receive the bulk of the bankruptcy estate’s assets due to its secured claim, and thus the fact that it would not do so through the fraudulent transfer claim did not constitute resolution of a discrete dispute. Opinion below.

2016-03-04 – schaumburg bank and trust v alsterda

Author: Matt Lindblom

Sturgeon v. Hart County Finance, LLC (In re Sturgeon)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Nov. 20, 2015)

The bankruptcy court grants the defendant’s motion to dismiss the adversary proceeding because it lacks jurisdiction over the claim asserted. The debtor listed the claim in his schedules, but the trustee effectively abandoned the claim upon filing his report of no distribution. The debtor then filed the adversary proceeding. The court finds that there is no “related to” jurisdiction because the claim was abandoned, outside the estate, and owned by the debtor. Opinion below.

2015-11-20 – sturgeon v hart county finance

Author: Matt Lindblom