(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Apr. 26, 2016)
The bankruptcy court grants the trustee and creditor’s motion to reconsider the Court’s entry of an order of discharge. The court had entered a judgment denying the debtor a discharge for failure to comply with court orders and hindering the trustee’s efforts. The case was closed, and much later the debtor moved to reopen the case to submit her financial management certificate to receive a discharge. The court entered the order of discharge a few days after the certificate was submitted. The court holds that the motion to reconsider was timely and that the record established that the debtor is not entitled to a discharge. Opinion below.
Attorney for Creditor: Stoll Keenon Ogden, PLLC, Matt Lindblom
Trustee: Gordon A. Rowe, Jr.
Attorney for Debtor: Timothy Denison
2016-04-26 – in re rowe
Author: Matt Lindblom
(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Mar 15, 2016)
The bankruptcy court denies the department’s motion to reconsider the judgment finding the debtor was entitled to a discharge of the debt to the department. Opinion below.
Attorneys for Department: Office of the Indiana Attorney General, Heather M. Crockett, Maricel E.V. Skiles, Spencer W. Tanner
Attorneys for Debtor: Redman Lugwig, Keith Eirik Gifford
2016-03-15 – in re burge
Opinion reconsidered: 2015-12-18 – In re Burge
(Bankr. N.D. Ind. Oct. 10, 2014)
The bankruptcy court denies the movants’ motion to alter or amend an earlier order dismissing their Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The movants’ former attorney was suspended from practice in April 2014. The trustee then filed a motion to dismiss the case because the debtors had failed to provide certain information for their case. The movants did not provide the information, failed to otherwise respond to the motion, and then failed to attend the hearing. The court found that the movants did not establish excusable neglect to warrant altering the dismissal order. Opinion below.
2014-10-10 – in re barth
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Issued June 16, 2014)
Judge Lloyd denies the debtor’s motion to reconsider the Court’s order granting summary judgment to the plaintiff, finding the plaintiff’s claim against the debtor was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(6). The Court rejects the debtor’s arguments, stating that the nondischargeability action could not serve as an appeal of the state court’s judgment establishing the debt. Opinion below.
2014-06-16 – dunn v campbell