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 Sheppard

(6th Cir. B.A.P. July 9, 2015)

The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Sixth Circuit reverses the bankruptcy court’s order denying the creditor’s motion for extension of time to file a complaint to determine the dischargeability of a debt and/or file an objection to the debtor’s discharge. The debtor’s counsel had been working with the creditor’s counsel prior to the bankruptcy filing but failed to notify the creditor’s counsel of the bankruptcy. Instead, the debtor gave notice to the creditor by sending a notice to the creditor’s out-of-state corporate headquarters. The creditor and its counsel had actual notice of the bankruptcy after they filed a complaint against the debtor in state court after the petition was filed and two days before the deadline. The bankruptcy court found that the creditor failed to show sufficient cause justifying an extension. The B.A.P. holds that such motions should be liberally granted when the circumstances merit such a finding, and in this case there was sufficient justification. Opinion below.

2015-07-09 – in re sheppard

Author: Matt Lindblom

Smith v. Montgomery (In re Montgomery)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Apr. 28, 2015)

The bankruptcy court dismisses the creditor’s complaint objecting to the discharge of her claim under § 523(a)(6). The Chapter 13 debtor was proceeding towards a full-compliance discharge under § 1328(a), and thus would be entitled to a discharge of debts under 523(a)(6). The court reasons that the issues raised by the creditor are not ripe for review unless and until the debtor moves for a hardship discharge, in which case debts described in § 523(a)(6) would not be discharged. Opinion below.

2015-04-28 – smith v montgomery

Author: Matt Lindblom

Eifler v. Wilson & Muir Bank & Trust Co.

(6th Cir. Dec. 8, 2014)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the district court, which affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision to deny the individual debtor’s discharge under 11 U.S.C. §§ 727(a)(2)(A) and (a)(4). The court holds that the advice of counsel defense does not apply here because the debtor had not made full disclosure of all pertinent facts to his attorney. The debtor omitted numerous transfers and accounts from his schedules and had disposed of most of his assets prior to filing bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court’s factual finding of fraudulent intent was not clearly erroneous. Opinion below.

2014-12-08 – eifler v wilson and muir