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

Feldman v. Pearl (In re Pearl)

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

The bankruptcy court enters judgment in favor of the debtor in this nondischargeability action. The plaintiff sought a judgment under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2), (4), and (6). The plaintiff alleged that the debtor wrongfully received distributions from the business entity controlled jointly by the debtor and the plaintiff. The court finds the plaintiff failed to present evidence sufficient to support the claims under § 523. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorneys for Plaintiff: Michael B. Baker, William R. O’Bryan, Jr.

Attorney for Defendant: Stuart P. Brown

2017-09-29 – in re pearl

Author: Matt Lindblom

Haire v. Padgett (In re Padgett)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Sep. 1, 2017)

The bankruptcy court finds in favor of the debtor in this nondischargeability action. The creditor’s claim was based on missing restaurant equipment following the termination of a real property lease to the debtor. The court finds the creditor failed to present evidence establishing that the debtor was responsible for the loss. The elements of §§ 523(a)(2), (4), and (6) were not satisfied. Opinion below.

Judge: Fulton

Attorneys for Debtor: Farmer & Wright, PLLC, Todd A. Farmer

Attorney for Creditor: Steve Vidmer

2017-09-01 – in re padgett

Author: Matt Lindblom

 

In re Stapp

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Aug. 21, 2017)

The bankruptcy court permits the creditor to file a 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3)(B) complaint. The creditor moved for leave to file its complaint because it had not received notice of the bankruptcy and the deadline for § 523 complaints had passed. The court finds that the debtor should have scheduled the creditor and that leave was not required given that § 523(a)(3)(B) allowed § 523 claims to be filed at any time if a creditor was not given proper notice of the bankruptcy filing. The court denies the motion with respect to the request to file a § 727 claim because the Bankruptcy Code does not contain a similar provision for those claims. Opinion below.

Judge: Moberly

Attorneys for Debtor: Tucker Legal Services, PC, William J. Tucker, Bradley J. Bucheit

Attorneys for Creditor: Riley Bennett Egloff LLP, Anthony R. Jost, Bryce H. Bennett, Jr.

2017-08-21 – in re stapp

Author: Matt Lindblom

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