Rosenfeld v. Rosenfeld (In re Rosenfeld

(6th Cir. Oct. 6, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the 11 U.S.C. § 727 complaint. The plaintiff is the debtor’s ex-husband. The court holds that the plaintiff does not have standing to bring the complaint. The only debt owed to him was already nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15) because it was incurred in connection with a divorce decree. Opinion below.

Judge: Bush

Attorney for Appellant: Kenneth R. Beams

Appellee: Pro Se

2017-10-06 – in re rosenfeld

Author: Matt Lindblom

Camofi Master LDC v. U.S. Coal Corp. (In re Licking River Mining, LLC)

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. May 9, 2016)

The bankruptcy court grants the trustee’s motion to dismiss the creditors’ adversary proceeding. The claims asserted by the creditors were property of the estate and thus the trustee has the exclusive right to assert the claims. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorneys for Trustee: Foley & Lardner LLP, Geoffrey S. Goodman, David B. Goroff

Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Akin Gump Strauss  Hauer & Feld LLP, Robert J. Boller, Douglas A. Rappaport, Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Casey M. Cantrell Swartz, W. Timothy Miller

Attorneys for Defendants: Nixon Peabody LLP, Dennis J. Drebsky, Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP, Daniel J. Donnellon, James R. Irving, Luskin Stern & Eisler LLP, Michael Luskin

2016-05-09 – in re licking river mining

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Jepson

(7th Cir. Mar. 22, 2016)

The Seventh Circuit affirms the lower courts’ decision to grant the mortgagee’s motion to modify the automatic stay to proceed with the state court foreclosure action. The court also affirms the lower courts’ decision to dismiss claims in the debtor’s adversary complaint against the mortgagee based on alleged violations of a pooling and service agreement. The debtor did not have standing on those claims because the debtor was not a third-party beneficiary to that agreement. However, the court remands for reconsideration of the dismissal of two claims that were not based on the pooling and service agreement. Opinion below.

Judge: Ripple

Attorney for Debtor: Kenneth E. Kaiser

Attorneys for Mortgagee: Kluever & Platt, LLC, Matthew Reasor Bowman, Morris Laing Evans Brock & Kennedy, CHTD., Justin F. Carter

2016-03-22 – in re jepson

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Taylor

(7th Cir. July 20, 2015)

The Seventh Circuit holds that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in issuing a contempt order and awarding damages to the debtor for the creditor’s alleged violation of the discharge injunction. The creditor’s adversary proceeding had been dismissed for failure to establish the creditor had standing to enforce a state court judgment. The judgment was then discharged. The creditor then went back to state court and obtained an order that stated a prior assignment of the judgment to the creditor had always been valid. The bankruptcy court held this violated the injunction. This court holds that obtaining the state court order was not an act to collect a discharged debt and it was not a collateral attack on the bankruptcy court’s orders. Opinion below.

2015-07-20 – in re taylor

Author: Matt Lindblom

Rugiero v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC

(6th Cir. Sep, 15, 2014)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the district court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims against the lender, asserted in his complaint filed after the foreclosure sale, after the statutory right of redemption lapsed, and after filing a chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. The alleged acts supporting the claim occurred prior to the bankruptcy filing and thus any claims would have to have been brought by the bankruptcy trustee. Opinion below.

2014-09-15 – rugiero v nationstar

Schwab v. Oscar (In re SII Liquidation Company)

(6th Cir. B.A.P. Sep. 15, 2014)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s denial of a motion for relief from judgment. The movants were shareholders of the debtor corporation, which had asserted malpractice claims against the debtor’s bankruptcy attorneys. Those claims had been dismissed based on the movants’ lack of standing. One year later, the movants filed the motion for relief from that judgment, asserting new evidence of a conflict of interest in support of the motion. The court finds that the movant’s lack of standing is still dispositive, even if new evidence had surfaced, because the movant failed to appeal the earlier judgment. Opinion below.

2014-09-15 – in re sii liquidation