Church Joint Venture, L.P. V. Grusin (In re Blasingame)

(Sixth Circuit, Jan. 4, 2018)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the B.A.P.’s decision to reverse the bankruptcy court’s order for sanctions. The movant failed to satisfy the twenty-one day safe harbor in Rule 9011. Click here for the B.A.P. opinion. Opinion below.

Judge: Keith

Attorney for Appellant: Malone Akerly Martin, Bruce W. Akerly

Attorney for Appellee: Edward Michael Bearman, Gary E., Veazey

2018-01-04 – in re blasingame

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Dickson

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 22, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the the creditors’ motion for sanctions pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9011. The creditors argued that the debtor filed her Chapter 11 petition in bad faith. The court finds that sanctions are appropriate because the debtor filed the petition without a legitimate bankruptcy purpose. The debtor sought the protection of the automatic stay but did not intend to reorganize or seek an orderly liquidation. Instead, the debtor sought to obtain a civil remedy—the stay of execution of the judgment against the debtor while her appeal was pending. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorneys for Debtor: Gess Mattingly & Atchison, William W. Allen, Stefan J. Bing, John Thomas Hamilton, Elizabeth Thompson

Attorney for Creditors: DelCotto Law Group PLLC, Jamie L. Harris

2017-11-22 – in re dickson

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Lockhart

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Jan. 17, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the creditor’s motion for sanctions, and awards the creditor her attorney fees. The debtor filed the Chapter 13 petition for the stated purpose of obtaining more time to obtain a reduction in his maintenance obligation owed to the creditor in the state court. The bankruptcy court finds that this was a violation of Bankruptcy Rule 9011(b). Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorney for Debtor: Naber & Joyner, J. Gregory Joyner

Attorney for Creditor: Joseph S. Elder II

2017-01-17-in-re-lockhart

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Sekema

(Bankr. N.D. Ind. Jan. 7, 2015)

The bankruptcy court finds sanctions are appropriate and enters an order fining the creditors $1,000 for submitting proofs of claim in violation of Bankruptcy Rule 9011. The debts were clearly barred by Indiana’s six-year limitations period. The debtor objected to the proof of claim, the creditors did not respond, and the claims were denied. The court then issued show cause orders, to which the creditors also did not respond. The creditors had not conducted the reasonable investigation required by Rule 9011 before submitting the claims. Opinion below.

2015-01-07 – in re sekema

Author: Matt Lindblom