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

Edmondson v. Gordon (In re Gordon)

(6th Cir. B.A.P. May 18, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s contempt order, but remands the matter for the limited purpose of providing the debtor sufficient notice and an opportunity to be heard on the issue of whether monetary sanctions were reasonable. The debtor sold property of the estate in direct violation of the bankruptcy court’s order. The bankruptcy court held the debtor in contempt and awarded the trustee his attorney fees as a sanction. However, the hearing notice for the contempt order did not make clear that monetary sanctions could be entered against the pro se debtor. Opinion below.

Judge: Opperman

Appellant: Pro Se

Attorney for Appellee: Thompson Burton PLLC, Phillip G. Young, Jr.

2017-05-18 – in re gordon

Author: Matt Lindblom