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

Savino v. Dodd (In re Dodd)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. July 14, 2017)

The bankruptcy court denies the creditor’s motion for summary judgment in this nondischargeability action under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2), (4), and (6). The creditor argued the debtor should be collaterally estopped from defending based on a prepetition judgment entered against the debtor. The court concludes that the issues were not “fairly and fully litigated” in the state court, and thus summary judgment based on collateral estoppel is not appropriate. Opinion below.

Judge: Moberly

Attorneys for Plaintiff: Blackwell, Burke & Ramsey, P.C., David M. Bullington, Jason R. Burke

Attorneys for Debtor: Halcomb Singler, LLP, Erika K. Singler

2017-07-14 – in re dodd

Author: Matt Lindblom

Trost v. Trost (In re Trost)

(6th Cir. B.A.P. June 28, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s entry of summary judgment, finding the debt owed to the plaintiff nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). The plaintiff had obtained a judgment against the debtors in state court on a conversion claim. The court holds that collateral estoppel applies and the elements of § 523(a)(6) were satisfied by the state court judgment. Opinion below.

Judge: Delk

Attorneys for Debtors: Schram, Behan & Behan, Michael R. Behan; Eiler Law Firm, Christian Michael Eiler

Attorneys for Plaintiff: Troy Richmond Hendrickson

2017-06-28 – in re trost

Author: Matt Lindblom

National Labor Relations Board v. Calvert

(S.D. Ind. Mar. 31, 2017)

The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s ruling in favor of the debtor in the nondischargeability action. The NLRB argued its claim against the debtor should be denied under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). The court holds that the prepetition administrative ruling finding the debtor acted out of “antiunion animus” did not necessarily satisfy the  requisite intent required under § 523(a)(6). Collateral estoppel did not apply. Opinion below.

Judge: Barker

Attorneys for NLRB: Dalford D. Owens , Jr., William R. Warwick

Attorneys for Debtor: Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Dustin R. DeNeal, Harmony A. Mappes

2017-03-31 – national labor relations board v calvert

Author: Matt Lindblom

Panther Petroleum, LLC v. Couch (In re Couch)

(6th Cir. B.A.P. Feb. 2, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in the nondischargeability action. Collateral estoppel prevented the debtor from defending against the claim that the debt arose from fraud and a willful and malicious injury. A Tennessee state court had entered a default judgment against the debtor that included specific factual findings that established a claim for nondischargeability under 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(4), and (a)(6). Opinion below.

Judge: Opperman

Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Keating, Muething & Klekamp, Joseph E. Lehnert, Brian P. Muething, Jason V. Stitt

Attorneys for Debtor: Hamm, Milby & Ridings, Roger Aaron Hostettler

2017-02-02-in-re-couch

Author: Matt Lindblom

 

Oaks v. Miller (In re Miller)

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Dec. 6, 2016)

The court enters judgment declaring the state court judgment nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(2)(A). The debtor represented to the plaintiff that he needed a loan to expand his construction business. The plaintiff loaned the debtor $62,000 based on this representation, but the debtor used the money to purchase vending machines that were disposed of within eight months. The debtor did not repay the loan, and the plaintiff obtained a judgment against him for the loan balance, interest, and punitive damages. The bankruptcy court finds the debt non-dischargeable, with the exception of certain attorney fees. Opinion below.

Judge: Schaaf

Attorney for Plaintiff: John E. Hinkel, Jr.

Attorney for Defendant: John M. Simms

2016-12-06-in-re-miller

Author: Matt Lindblom