Reinbold v. Thorpe (In re Thorpe)

(7th Cir. Jan. 31, 2018)

The Seventh Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court, holding that the bankruptcy estate took the debtor’s half interest in the real property subject to the debtor’s ex-spouse’s contingent interest in the property. The court applies the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act and concludes that the divorce court divested the estate of all rights to the marital home when it awarded the property to the debtor’s ex-spouse pre-petition. Opinion below.

Judge: Sykes

Attorneys for the Trustee: Jeana K. Reinbold; Pollick & Schmahl, LLC, Michael Mario Schmahl, John Franklin Pollick

Attorney for Appellee: Katz, Huntoon & Fieweger, Dale G. Haake

2018-01-31 – in re thorpe

Author: Matt Lindblom

 

In re Odell

(6th Cir. B.A.P. Jan. 30, 2018)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. dismisses the appeal as moot. The debtor claimed an exemption in her real property that was greater than its value. The mortgagee obtained stay relief to foreclose on the debtor’s real property, and the debtor appealed. The court holds that because the exemption amount exceeded the value of the property, the property was no longer property of the estate and thus not subject to the automatic stay. Even if the court were to reverse the bankruptcy court’s stay relief order, the outcome would be the same. Opinion below.

Judge: Preston

Debtor: Pro Se

Attorney for Creditor: Lerner, Sampson & Rothfuss, Joel K. Jensen

2018-01-30 – in re odell

Author: Matt Lindblom

Renner v. U.S. Bank National Association (In re Renner)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Oct. 20, 2017)

The bankruptcy court dismisses the debtor’s complaint against the lender, which asserted claims related to the lender’s foreclosure of its mortgage lien in state court. The court dismisses the stay violation claim, because the property was not property of the estate at the time of the alleged acts, and dismisses the remaining claims because the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Opinion below.

Judge: Carr

Attorney for Debtor: Sawin, Shea & Des Jardines LLC, J. Andrew Sawin

Attorneys for Defendant: Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Tammara Danielle Porter

2017-10-20 – in re renner

Author: Matt Lindblom

Camofi Master LDC v. Spradlin

(E.D. Ky. Oct. 6, 2017)

The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s order granting the trustee’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The trustee has the exclusive right to pursue claims asserted in the complaint. The appellant’s arguments that the lawsuits were distinct are rejected. If the appellant and trustee could both pursue the claims there would be a significant chance of a double recovery. Opinion below.

Judge: Wilhoit

Attorneys for Appellants: Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, LLP, Casey M. Cantrell-Swartz, W. Timothy Miller; Akin Gump Strauss Huaer & Feld LLP, Douglas A. Rapp sport, Robert J. Boller

Attorneys for Appellees: Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP, Daniel J. Donnellon; Foley & Lardner, LLP, David B. Goroff, Geoffrey S. Goodman; Barber Law PLLC, T. Kent Barber; Luskin, Stern & Eisner LLP, Michael Luskin; Fowler Bell PLLC, Taft A. McKinstry

2017-10-06 – in re camofi master and camhzn master

Author: Matt Lindblom

Grede v. FCStone, LLC (In re Sentinel Management Group, Inc.)

(7th Cir. Aug. 14, 2017)

The Seventh Circuit reverses the district court and holds that certain funds held by the debtor were held in trust for the appellant and other creditors in the same customer class. The funds therefore were not property of the estate that should be distributed pro rata to all creditors. Opinion below.

Judge: Hamilton

Attorneys for Appellant: Foley & Lardner LLP, Stephen Bedell, Robert Seth Bressler, Geoffrey S. Goodman, David B. Goroff, Thomas P. Krebs, William J. McKenna, Jr.

Attorneys for Appellee: Jenner & Block LLP, Vincent E. Lazar, Catherine L. Steele, Angela M. Allen, Barry Levenstam

2017-08-14 – in re fcstone

Author: Matt Lindblom

Kendrick v. Rister (In re Rister)

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Aug. 4, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the motion to dismiss the trustee’s complaint. The court recently entered an order dismissing the trustee’s complaint for failure to state a claim but permitted the trustee leave to amend the complaint. See In re Rister. The amended complaint alleged that the vehicle became property of the estate because it was a proceed of the debtor’s contractual rights to the vehicle as of the petition date, whereas the original complaint alleged the vehicle itself was property of the estate on the petition date. The court finds that the fact that the debtor’s name was not on the certificate of title on the petition date is still dispositive. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorney for Trustee: Michael B. Baker

Attorneys for Defendants: Steffen Law Offices, Eric A. Steiden; Frost Brown Todd LLC, Paige Leigh Ellerman, Adam J. Webb; Aaron J. Nash; Patricia L. Johnson

2017-08-04 – in re rister

Author: Matt Lindblom

Carroll v. Takada

(7th Cir. July 18, 2017)

The Seventh Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s order sustaining the trustee’s objection to the debtors’ $30,000 exemption in trust assets. The debtors argued the spendthrift provisions in the trust prevented the interest from becoming property of the estate. The court holds that the trust interest fully vested before the debtors filed bankruptcy. An exemption was inappropriate and the interest was property of the estate. Opinion below.

Judge: Sykes

Attorney for Debtors: Julia D. Mannix

Attorney for Trustee: Zane Zielinski

2017-07-18 – in re carroll

Author: Matt Lindblom