CNH Industrial Capital America LLC v. Williams (In re Williams)

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

The bankruptcy court enters summary judgment in favor of the creditor on two counts in the nondischargeability complaint. The debtor sold two pieces of equipment collateral without delivering the proceeds to the creditor. The court finds that the facts establish the debtor acted willfully and maliciously in causing the injury to the creditor. A third piece of equipment collateral was repossessed by another creditor and created a factual dispute. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorney for Creditor: Andrews Law Firm, PLLC, Ashley Sanders Cox

Attorney for Debtor: Mark H. Flener

2018-04-05 – in re williams

Author: Matt Lindblom

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

Indiana v. Owens (In re Owens)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Mar. 20, 2018)

The bankruptcy court holds that a fine for wrongful receipt of unemployment benefits is excepted from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7). However, the benefits received while the debtor worked under a certain contract were not excepted under § 523(a)(2) because the debtor established that he was confused by the government’s response to his question about whether he was “employed” if he was working pursuant to a coaching contract. Opinion below.

Judge: Carr

Attorney for Government: Megan Elizabeth Binder

Attorney for Debtor: Thomas H. Rothe

2018-03-20 – in re owens

Author: Matt Lindblom

Yusuf v. Oduyemi (In re Oduyemi)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Mar. 20, 2018)

The bankruptcy court finds in favor of the debtor in this nondischargeability action. The plaintiff alleged that the debtor had fraudulently taken funds from the plaintiff for the purchase of a vehicle that the debtor did not provide. The court finds that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient proof of the necessary intent under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6). Opinion below.

Judge: Carr

Attorney for Plaintiff: Carrie L. Breedlove

Debtor: Pro Se

2018-03-20 – in re oduyemi

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Hole

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Mar. 2, 2018)

The bankruptcy court grants the creditors’ motion for an extension of time to file a non-dischargeability complaint. The motion was filed one day after the deadline for filing such complaints. The court finds that the creditors had been diligent in pursuing their claims, the debtor was not prejudiced by the delay, and the circumstances warranted extending the deadline pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 105(a). Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorney for Debtor: Julie Ann O’Bryan

Attorney for Creditor: Ballard Rogers Law Office, PLLC, B. Ballard Rogers

2018-03-02 – in re hole

Author: Matt Lindblom

Owens v. Coffey (In re Coffey)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Mar. 1, 2018)

The bankruptcy court denies the debtor’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The plaintiff commenced a state court action prior to the bankruptcy that asserted claims against the debtor, including fraud. The debtor argued that the plaintiff’s non-dischargeability claims were barred by res judicata, as the Chapter 13 plan had already been confirmed. The court notes that there was no express provision in the plan that provided the plaintiff’s claims were deemed dischargeable. Further, the debtor’s arguments as to the merits of the underlying claim should be asserted in the state court action and would not defeat the non-dischargeability claims at this stage. The court holds the adversary proceeding in abeyance so the state court action can proceed. Opinion below.

Judge: Stout

Attorney for Debtor: Joseph S. Elder, II

Attorney for Creditor: Willam R. Noelker

2018-03-01 – in re coffey

Author: Matt Lindblom

Calloway Cleaning & Restoration, Inc. v. McFarland (In re McFarland)

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Feb. 20, 2018)

The bankruptcy court enters summary judgment in favor of the debtors in this nondischargeability action. Following a Christmas Eve fire at the debtors’ home, they entered into a contract with the plaintiff to restore the property. The contract provided that the plaintiff would take insurance proceeds as compensation for the work. A dispute arose, and the debtors used the insurance proceeds for other expenses. The plaintiff argued that the debt is non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2) and (4). The court disagrees, finding the creditor failed to present evidence sufficient to establish the necessary intent under § 523(a)(2) or to establish a “fiduciary capacity” under § 523(a)(4). Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorneys for Creditor: Frost Brown Todd LLC, Patricia K. Burgess; Michael E. Nitardy

Attorney for Debtors: Michael L. Baker

2018-02-20 – in re mcfarland

Author: Matt Lindblom

Campbell v. Butz (In re Butz)

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

The bankruptcy court enters judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in this non-dischargeability action. The debtors had obtained a loan from the plaintiffs (parents of one of the debtors) to be used in the debtors’ business. The loan was secured by a lien on the debtors’ personal property. The debtors used loan funds for personal expenses rather than the business, and the debtors sold much of their personal property without turning the proceeds over to the plaintiffs. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Kerrick Bachert PSC, Scott A. Bachert, Ashley Gerughty

Attorney for Debtors: Mark H. Flener

2018-01-05 – in re butz

Author: Matt Lindblom

Ryan v. Morris (In re Morris)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Dec. 19, 2017)

The bankruptcy court enters judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, holding the debt owed to them is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6), and holding that the debtors should be denied a discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(3) and (a)(4). The debtors borrowed funds from the plaintiffs for real estate investments but failed to fully disclose how the funds were being used and used proceeds from sales for unauthorized purchases. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Kerrick Bachert PSC, Scott A. Bachert, Ashley Gerughty

Attorneys for Debtors: Mark H. Flener, Alicia C. Johnson

2017-12-19 – in re morris

Author: Matt Lindblom

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

(6th Cir. Nov. 6, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the B.A.P., holding the entry of summary judgment in favor of the creditors in the nondischargeability action was appropriate. The creditors obtained a default judgment against the debtor in Tennessee state court. The default judgment was on the merits and the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied. Opinion below.

Judge: Rogers

Appellant: Pro Se

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

2017-11-06 – in re couch

Author: Matt Lindblom