Gower v. Parker (In re Parker)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Oct. 3, 2016)

The bankruptcy court denies the debtor’s motion to dismiss the nondischargeability action. The debt arose from a burglary of an individual’s home. The individual died prepetition. The deceased individual’s beneficiaries filed the action pro se, naming the individual’s estate as well as themselves as plaintiffs. The debtor argued the complaint should be dismissed because the beneficiaries engaged in the unauthorized practice of law because the estate was included. The Court relies on a recent Sixth Circuit opinion and finds the beneficiaries were permitted to file as they did. The debtor also argued the complaint should be dismissed because of the timing of service of the complaint and summons. The Court holds the proper procedures were followed. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorney for Plaintiffs: Crain, Schuette & Associates, Amanda Lisenby Blakeman

Attorney for Debtor: Alicia C. Johnson

2016-10-03-in-re-parker

Author: Matt Lindblom

Gilliland v. Fifth Third Mortgage Company

(S.D. Ind. Sep. 30, 2015)

The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing the pro se debtor’s chapter 13 bankruptcy case and a related adversary proceeding and denying the debtor’s motions for relief from judgment. The debtor had no income and therefore could not be a Chapter 13 debtor. Opinion below.

2015-09-30 – gilliland v fifth third mortgage

Author: Matt Lindblom

Mileusnic v. Planet Home Lending LLC

(N.D. Ind. Aug. 11, 2015)

The district court grants appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal. The pro se appellant failed to file an appellate brief by the deadline and failed to explain that failure in response to the motion to dismiss the appeal. Opinion below.

2015-08-11 – mileusnic v planet home lending

Author: Matt Lindblom

Seamster v. Chael

(N.D. Ind. Oct. 14, 2014)

The district court dismisses the pro se chapter 13 debtor’s appeal for failure to pay the appeal filing fee, because the subject order was not a final appealable order, because the subject order was later vacated, and because the debtor failed to timely file a brief in support of the appeal. Opinion below.

2014-14-14 – seamster v chael