In re Pfetzer

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Mar. 22, 2018)

The bankruptcy court addresses the issue of whether a motion to dismiss for lack of good faith under 11 U.S.C. § 1307(c) can save an otherwise untimely § 1325(a)(7) objection to confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan. The court holds that because § 1325(a)(7) requires the determination of the debtor’s good faith in filing the petition as part of the plan confirmation process, a motion to dismiss under § 1325(a)(7) cannot rely on an allegation of lack of good faith if the motion is filed after the deadline to object to confirmation. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorney for Debtor: Michael B. Baker

Attorney for Creditor: Finney Law Firm, LLC, Justin C. Walker

2018-03-22 – in re pfetzer

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

In re Lane

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

The bankruptcy court denies the creditors’ motion to dismiss the Chapter 13 case. The motion raised issues that could have been raised in an objection to confirmation of the plan. The confirmation order operates as res judicata of all issues which could have been raised at the confirmation hearing. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorneys for Debtor: Seiller Waterman LLC, Neil Charles Bordy

Creditor: Pro Se

2018-02-05 – in re lane

Author: Matt Lindblom

The Branham Corporation v. Boone County Utilities, LLC (In re Boone County Utilities, LLC)

(S.D. Ind. Jan. 22, 2018)

The district court affirms several orders of the bankruptcy court and remands for further proceedings with respect to sanctions. The plaintiff appealed orders and issues related to subject matter jurisdiction, summary judgment, plan and confirmation order interpretation, discovery, dismissal of a complaint, and sanctions against the plaintiff. Opinion below.

Judge: Young

Attorney for Plaintiff: Jacobson Hile, LLC; Michael W. Hile

Attorney for Debtor: Bator Law, LLC; John E. Bator

2018-01-22 – in re boone county utilities

Author: Matt Lindblom

Harper v. The Oversight Committee (In re Conco, Inc.)

(6th Cir. April 28, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the district court and the bankruptcy court, holding that the sale of certain equity interests in the debtor to third parties was prohibited by the confirmed Chapter 11 plan. While the plan was silent as to such sales, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion when interpreting the plan and considering the intent of the parties based on the negotiations that resulted in the final confirmed plan. Opinion below.

Judge: Donald

Attorneys for Appellants: Frost Brown Todd, Edward Michael King, John Scott Egan, Cory J. Skolnick; Hahn & Hessen, Gilbert Backenroth; Kaplan & Partners, David S. Kaplan, Casey Leigh Hinkle

Attorneys for Appellee: Bingham Greenbaum Doll, John K. Bush, Claude R. Bowles, Jr., James R. Irving; Seiller Waterman, Neil C. Bordy, Glenn Alan Cohen, Keith James Larson

2017-04-28 – in re conco

District Court Opinion

Bankruptcy Court Opinion

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Neace

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Jan. 6, 2017)

The bankruptcy court overrules the creditor’s objection to confirmation of the Chapter 13 plan. The creditor argued its claim, secured by the debtors’ mobile home, should be increased by the cost of delivery and set-up of the home. The court holds that set-up and delivery costs may not be used as a means to increase the replacement value as a matter of law. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorney for Debtor: Daryle M. Ronning

Attorneys for Creditor: McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie & Kirkland, Zachary A. Horn

2017-01-06-in-re-neace

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Perkins

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Dec. 22, 2016)

The bankruptcy court overrules the creditor’s objection and confirms the Chapter 12 plan. The creditor argued that the debtor was not a “family farmer,” and thus did not qualify for Chapter 12. The court finds that the debtor had sufficient income from the farming operation to satisfy the Code’s definition, which definition the court construes broadly. Further, the court finds the debtor’s debt level does not exceed the debt limitation for Chapter 12. The court looks only to the debtor’s schedules, rather than adding the scheduled debt to the debt reflected in the filed claims. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorney for Debtor: Sandra D. Freeburger

Attorneys for Creditor: Stites & Harbison PLLC, Brian H. Meldrum, Brian R. Pollock

2016-12-22-in-re-perkins

Author: Matt Lindblom