Diaz v. Castillo (In re Castillo)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Apr. 4, 2018)

The bankruptcy court denies the debtor’s motion to dismiss the nondischargeability complaint. The court finds that the complaint is a short, plain statement of the plaintiff’s claims, which constitute plausible claims upon which relief can be granted. Opinion below.

Judge: Carr

Attorney for Plaintiff: Randolph A. Leerkamp

Attorney for Debtor: Carey Law Office, Penny Lynn Carey

2018-04-04 – in re castillo

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Lane

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Feb. 5, 2018)

The bankruptcy court denies the creditors’ motion to dismiss the Chapter 13 case. The motion raised issues that could have been raised in an objection to confirmation of the plan. The confirmation order operates as res judicata of all issues which could have been raised at the confirmation hearing. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorneys for Debtor: Seiller Waterman LLC, Neil Charles Bordy

Creditor: Pro Se

2018-02-05 – in re lane

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Valentine Hill Farm LLC

(Bank. S.D. Ind. Jan. 25, 2018)

The bankruptcy court grants the debtor’s motion to dismiss the Chapter 12 case but bars the debtor from refiling a case under any chapter for 180 days. The debtor filed its motion after the trustee filed a motion to dismiss and for a 180-day refiling bar. The court concludes that the debtor has the right to dismiss its case under 11 U.S.C. § 1208(b), and thus the trustee’s motion must be denied. However, the court finds that the case was filed in bad faith and thus the Court can order the 180-day bar without motion under § 349(a). Opinion below.

Judge: Moberly

Attorney for Debtor: McClure O’Farrell, Thomas B. O’Farrell

Trustee: Joseph M. Black, Jr.

2018-01-25 – in re valentine hill farm

Author: Matt Lindblom

Spradlin v. Whitt (In re Licking River Mining, LLC)

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. June 29, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the defendants’ motion to dismiss in this adversary proceeding. The trustee sought to subordinate and recharacterize defendants’ claims under 11 U.S.C. § 510, avoid as fraudulent and preferential transfers certain transfers to the defendants, and disallow defendants’ claims. The court finds that the trustee fails to allege facts sufficient to support any of the claims. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorneys for Trustee: Bingham Greenbaum Doll LLP, Claude R. Bowles, Jr., Danial J. Donnellon, James R. Irving, Alex S. Rodger, April A. Wimberg

Attorneys for Defendants: Brian H. Meldrum, Brian R. Pollock

2017-06-29 – in re licking river mining

Author: Matt Lindblom

Spradlin v. Wrigley’s 7-711, Inc. (In re Licking River Mining, LLC)

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. June 21, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the defendant’s motion to dismiss the trustee’s complaint, which sought to avoid transfers from debtors to the defendant. The complaint failed to state a claim, in part because the defendant could not be deemed an “insider” of the debtor. The court additionally finds that the complaint contains insufficient facts to support various other claims. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorneys for Trustee: Bingham Greenbaum Doll LLP, Claude R. Bowles, Jr., Daniel J. Donnellon, James R. Irving, April A. Wimberg

Attorneys for Defendant: Stites & Harbison, PLLC, Brian H. Meldrum, Brian R. Pollock

2017-06-21 – in re licking river mining

Author: Matt Lindblom

Spradlin v. Monday Coal, LLC (In re Licking River Mining, LLC)

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Apr. 13, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the defendant’s motion to dismiss except with respect to payments received from the debtor within the 90-day prepetition preference period. The court first finds that the trustee failed to state a claim for avoidance of alleged preferential transfers made outside the 90-day period because the facts alleged did not show that the defendant was an “insider” as defined in the bankruptcy code or a “non-statutory insider” under case law. The trustee also failed to allege facts sufficient to support various other claims to avoid transfers to the defendant. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorneys for Trustee: Bingham Greenbaum Doll LLP, Claude R. Bowles, Jr., Daniel J. Donnellon, Jamies R. Irving, April A. Wimberg

Attorneys for Defendant: Stites & Harbison, Brian H. Meldrum, Brian R. Pollock

2017-04-13 – in re licking river mining

Author: Matt Lindblom

Spradlin v. Pryor Cashman (In re Licking River Mining, LLC)

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Mar. 24, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants in part and denies in part the defendant’s motion to dismiss in this fraudulent and preferential transfer avoidance action. The trustee’s amended complaint failed to state claims based on certain transfers, but did state a preferential transfer claim.

Judge: Wise

Attorneys for Trustee: Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP, Claude R.Bowles, Jr., Daniel J. Donnellon, Alex S. Rodger

Attorneys for Defendant: Ross M. Bagley, Gideon Cashman, Eric M. Fishman, Adam R. Kegley

2017-03-24 – in re licking river mining

Author: Matt Lindblom