Trost v. Trost (In re Trost)

(6th Cir. B.A.P. June 28, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s entry of summary judgment, finding the debt owed to the plaintiff nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). The plaintiff had obtained a judgment against the debtors in state court on a conversion claim. The court holds that collateral estoppel applies and the elements of § 523(a)(6) were satisfied by the state court judgment. Opinion below.

Judge: Delk

Attorneys for Debtors: Schram, Behan & Behan, Michael R. Behan; Eiler Law Firm, Christian Michael Eiler

Attorneys for Plaintiff: Troy Richmond Hendrickson

2017-06-28 – in re trost

Author: Matt Lindblom

Stroud v. Parker (In re Parker)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. May 12, 2017)

The bankruptcy court enters summary judgment against the debtor holding the debt nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4). The plaintiffs inherited a judgment against the debtor that was based on the debtor’s theft of the decedent’s property. The plaintiffs were the proper parties to bring the claim, as the decedent’s estate assigned the judgment to them, and the requirements of § 523(a)(4) were satisfied. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Crain – Schuette Attorneys, Amanda Lisenby Blakeman

Attorney for Debtor: Alicia C. Johnson

2017-05-12 – in re parker

Author: Matt Lindblom

McDermott v. St. George (In re St. George)

(6th Cir. B.A.P. April 17, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P reverses the bankruptcy court’s order granting the U.S. Trustee a second extension of the deadline to file a nondischargeability complaint and reverses the subsequent judgment denying the debtor a Chapter 7 discharge. The court finds that the U.S. Trustee failed to establish sufficient cause for an additional extension under Bankruptcy Rule 4004(b). Opinion below.

Judge: Harrison

Attorneys for U.S. Trustee: Amy L. Good, Scott Robert Belhorn, Sharon Nollsch

Attorney for Debtor: Lee Raymond Kravitz

2017-04-17 – in re st george

Author: Matt Lindblom

Community First Bank of Indiana v. Galyan (In re Galyan)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Apr. 13, 2017)

Following trial, the bankruptcy court enters judgment against the debtor, finding the loan debt owed to the bank is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B). The court finds that the debtor made false representations with respect to his ownership interest in real property and the existence of a debt owed, which representations were reasonably relied upon by the bank when making the loan. Opinion below.

Judge: Carr

Attorneys for Plaintiff: Riley Bennett & Egloff, LLP, Anthony R. Jost

Attorney for Defendant: KC Cohen

2017-04-13 – in re galyan

Author: Matt Lindblom

Indiana Department of Workforce Development v. Burge (In re Burge)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Feb. 2, 2017)

The bankruptcy court makes additional findings of fact following the appeal and remand. The court’s original judgment stands, as the court concludes again that the plaintiff failed to prove that the debtor should have known of the fraud committed with his accounts. Opinion below

Prior opinion summary: click here

Judge: Carr

Attorneys for Plaintiff: Jackson Kelly, PLLC, Spencer W. Tanner; Office of the Attorney General, Heather M. Crockett, Maricel E.V. Skiles

Attorneys for Debtor: Redman Ludwig, Keith Eirik Gifford

2017-02-02-in-re-burge

Author: Matt Lindblom

Panther Petroleum, LLC v. Couch (In re Couch)

(6th Cir. B.A.P. Feb. 2, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in the nondischargeability action. Collateral estoppel prevented the debtor from defending against the claim that the debt arose from fraud and a willful and malicious injury. A Tennessee state court had entered a default judgment against the debtor that included specific factual findings that established a claim for nondischargeability under 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(4), and (a)(6). Opinion below.

Judge: Opperman

Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Keating, Muething & Klekamp, Joseph E. Lehnert, Brian P. Muething, Jason V. Stitt

Attorneys for Debtor: Hamm, Milby & Ridings, Roger Aaron Hostettler

2017-02-02-in-re-couch

Author: Matt Lindblom

 

In re Kempff

(7th Cir. Jan. 30, 2017)

The Seventh Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s judgment in favor of the debtor in the nondischargeability action. The creditor argued the discharge should be denied because the debtor transferred funds to pay a tax claim after the petition was filed and because of misstatements in the debtor’s schedules. The bankruptcy court found that the debtor did not authorize the post-petition transfer and found her testimony that the errors in the schedules were innocent mistakes. The court affirms, finding no basis to disturb the bankruptcy court’s findings and acceptance of the debtor’s testimony. Opinion below.

Judge: Sykes

Attorneys for Debtor: Burke, Warren, Mackay & Serritella, P.C.

Attorney for Appellant: Jeffrey W. Finke

2017-01-30-in-re-kempff

Author: Matt Lindblom