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

MERV Properties, LLC v. Friedlander (In re MERV Properties, LLC)

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. May 4, 2015)

The bankruptcy court denies the plaintiff’s motion for default judgment and dismisses the action against the individual defendant. The plaintiff attempted to serve the complaint and summons on the defendant by mailing them to “the place where the individual regularly conducts a business or profession,” pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 7004(b). The plaintiff then waited until well after the 120-day deadline to effect service and moved for default judgment. The court finds that service was not effective because the defendant did not regularly conduct business at the address at the time of the attempted service, and the plaintiff could not establish good cause for meeting the 120-day service deadline. Thus, the Court declined to extend the period for effecting service.

In a second opinion entered the same day, the Court granted motions for summary judgment in favor of the other defendants. Claims of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims against the individual defendants were not supported by evidence and dismissed. Claims against the bank defendant were analyzed under Article 3 of Kentucky’s UCC and also dismissed. Opinions below.

2015-05-04 – merv properties v friedlander1

2015-05-04 – merv properties v friedlander2

Author: Matt Lindblom