In re Jude

(E.D. Ky. Bankr. June 24, 2016)

In this Chapter 13, the bankruptcy court rules on the objection to confirmation and finds that the creditor’s expert’s valuation of the debtor’s mobile home was more reliable than the valuations provided by the debtor’s experts. The creditor’s expert testimony was not hearsay, as it was reasonable for the expert to rely on information about the particular mobile home model provided by the manufacturer. The debtor’s experts failed to obtain knowledge of the particular model before determining their values. Opinion below.

Judge: Schaaf

Attorney for Debtor: Holmes Law Firm, Elaina L. Holmes

Attorney for Creditor: McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, Zachary A. Horn

2016-06-24 – in re jude

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Jones

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Aug. 3, 2015)

The bankruptcy court revisits the issue of the appropriate cramdown interest rate to apply in a Chapter 13 plan. The court holds that the “formula approach,” as set forth in the plurality opinion in Till, determines the correct rate. The debtor’s plan proposed to pay the secured creditor’s claim with interest at 5.25% (2% over the Wall Street Journal prime rate). The creditor argued that Till was not binding and that prior Sixth Circuit law provided the appropriate standard. The court provides a good discussion of the history of Till and its application in the Sixth Circuit and concludes that the “formula approach” is the correct standard. Opinion below.

2015-08-03 – in re jones

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Henry

(6th Cir. B.A.P. Aug. 3, 2015)

The Sixth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirms the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the pro se debtor’s chapter 13 case. The debtor’s proposed plan could not be confirmed, and the court directed that the debtor remedy errors in the plan within 14 days. The debtor failed to timely submit an amended plan. Opinion below.

2015-08-03 – in re henry

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Dave’s Detailing, Inc.

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. July 30, 2015)

In this lengthy opinion, the bankruptcy court declines to confirm two competing Chapter 11 plans. The debtor’s plan is not confirmed because it is not feasible under § 1129(a)(11) and it is not “fair and equitable” under § 1129(b). The other plan, proposed by the debtor’s competitor and largest unsecured creditor, can not be confirmed because certain claims are not properly classified and the plan unfairly discriminates against a class of creditors. The opinion provides a good discussion of standards under § 1129. Opinion below.

2015-07-30 – in re daves detailing

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Birdwell

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. June 29, 2015)

Judge Lloyd confirms the Chapter 13 plan at 100% on condition that the debtors remit all tax refunds during the plan term to the Chapter 13 trustee for distribution to creditors. The court requires this because the debtors refused to justify the telecom expense of more than 5% of the debtors monthly net income ($400 per month). Opinion below.

2015-06-29 – in re birdwell

Author: Matt Lindblom

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

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. May 8, 2015)

In this declaratory judgment action, the bankruptcy court grants partial summary judgment in favor of the Chapter 11 debtor. The debtor’s plan had been confirmed ten years prior to this action and the plaintiff brought the action to attack certain provisions of that plan. The bankruptcy court interprets its prior orders in the bankruptcy case and ultimately rules in favor of the debtor, as well as finds sanctions against the plaintiff are appropriate. Opinion below.

2015-05-08 – boone county utilities v the branham corporation

Author: Matt Lindblom

Buridi v. KMC Real Estate Investors, LLC (In re KMC Real Estate Investors, LLC)

(S.D Ind. May 8, 2015)

The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s confirmation of the Chapter 11 plans. The appellant made numerous objections, including an objection that the plan’s provisions giving four individuals ownership interests in the debtor-hospital violated federal healthcare statutes. The district court rejects the appellant’s arguments and affirms confirmation. Opinion below.

2015-05-08 – buridi v kmc real estate investors

Author: Matt Lindblom

Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank

(U.S. Sup. Ct. May 4, 2015)

The Supreme Court holds that an order denying confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan is not a final order that the debtor can immediately appeal. The debtor submitted a Chapter 13 plan that split the mortgage holder’s claim into a secured claim and an unsecured claim. The debtor proposed to pay only a small portion of the unsecured claim and to pay the secured claim in full but long after the plan period. The bankruptcy court declined confirmation, and the debtor appealed to the BAP for the First Circuit. The BAP first ruled that it was not a final order but then nevertheless reviewed the interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). The BAP affirmed. The debtor then sought review in the Court of Appeals, which recognized there was a split among the circuits on the issue of whether an order denying confirmation was a final appealable order. It ultimately sided with the majority. The court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because it was not a final order from the bankruptcy court and the BAP had not certified the appeal. The debtor then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court holds that an order denying confirmation is not a final order subject to appeal, as there is no conclusion to a “proceeding” at that point. The debtor can submit a revised plan and the status quo remains the same in the interim. On the other hand a dismissal following denial of confirmation or confirmation itself does alter the status quo and thus concludes the “proceeding.” Opinion below.

2015-05-04 – bullard v blue hills bank

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Trainor

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Dec. 22, 2014)

The bankruptcy court overrules the creditor’s objection to the Chapter 13 debtor’s proposed plan. The creditor was the debtor’s ex-wife. She objected to the plan, arguing both the petition and the plan were filed in bad faith, as the debtor’s sole motivation was to discharge a judgment she had obtained following the divorce. The court discusses the standards for showing a petition and plan are filed in bad faith. The creditor failed to satisfy either standard. Although there were inaccuracies in the debtor’s schedules, they did not rise to the level of showing fraud or bad faith. The court ordered the debtor to correct the schedules and file an amended plan if necessary. Opinion below.

2014-12-22 – in re trainor

Buridi v KMC Real Estate Investors, LLC (In re KMC Real Estate Investors, LLC)

(S.D. Ind. Sep. 29, 2014)

The district court denies the debtors’ motions to dismiss the appeal. The doctor appealed the confirmation of the two confirmed chapter 11 plans, arguing equity distributions to four doctors were not compliant with certain federal healthcare laws. The debtors moved to dismiss the appeal based on substantial consummation of the plans. The court found that the plans had indeed been substantially consummated, but the appeal, if successful, would only affect the insider distributions and would not likely have any effect on third parties’ rights under the plan. Thus, the appeal can proceed. Opinion below.

2014-09-29 – in re kmc real estate investors, llc