(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.
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
(Bankr. S.D. Ind. June 26, 2017)
The bankruptcy court dismisses without prejudice the debtor’s complaint against a foreclosing creditor because the court concludes it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The debtor filed the complaint alleging numerous causes of action, including violations of the automatic stay. However, the alleged acts occurred at a time when the subject property was no longer property of the estate. Opinion below.
Attorneys for Debtor: Sabin, Shea & Des Jardines LLC, J. Andrew Sabin
Attorneys for Creditor: Rubin & Levin, Reynold T. Berry, Deborah Caruso, Ian Peter Goodman, Cassandra A. Nielsen, Meredith R. Theisen
2017-06-26 – in re renner
Author: Matt Lindblom
(Bankr. N.D. Ind. Dec. 16, 2014)
The bankruptcy court denies the defendants’ motion to dismiss the adversary proceeding. The trustee had sued the defendants in state court seeking to avoid certain stock transactions with the debtor. The trustee then removed the action to the bankruptcy court, and the defendants moved to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and mandatory abstention. The court has jurisdiction because the determination of the trustee’s claims has a significant impact on the debtor’s estate. Further, the court is not required to abstain, because abstention requires an action to be pending in another court. Because the case was removed to the bankruptcy court, there was no longer an action pending in state court. Opinion below.
2014-12-16 – roach v barcus
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Dec. 17, 2014)
The bankruptcy court dismisses the lien avoidance action for lack of jurisdiction. The defendant obtained an order abandoning the trustee’s interest in and granting stay relief with respect to the debtors’ manufactured home on which the defendant claimed a lien. The debtors then filed the adversary proceeding, seeking to avoid the lien for failure to properly perfect the lien, and filed a motion to reconsider the court’s order granting stay relief. The court granted the motion to reconsider, leaving the stay in place pending further orders of the court. The defendant moved to dismiss the adversary proceeding, arguing the debtors did not have standing to pursue the avoidance action. The court granted the motion, but did so on the basis that it had ordered the trustee’s interest in the property abandoned. Thus, because the property was abandoned and no longer property of the estate, the court had no jurisdiction over it. Opinion below.
2014-12-17 – robinson v manufactured housing contract
(6th Cir. Dec. 10, 2014)
The Sixth Circuit dismisses the appeal from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (“BAP”) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The bankruptcy court ruled in the nondischargeability adversary proceeding that the creditor’s claims were dischargeable, and the creditor appealed to the BAP. The BAP reversed, holding that the bankruptcy court incorrectly applied 11 U.S.C. § 523, and remanded for further proceedings on damages. The debtor then appealed to the Sixth Circuit. The court recognizes that it only has jurisdiction to consider final orders from the BAP. The BAP’s order was not final, as it remanded to the bankruptcy court to consider further evidence. Opinion below.
2014-12-10 – kraus anderson v bradley
(6th Cir. B.A.P. Dec. 10, 2014)
The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s denial of the motion to enforce an order approving compromise of claims in this Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The movants were the debtor’s principal and the new entity that held property owned by the debtor entity prepetition. Before the bankruptcy, the respondents had instituted successor liability and fraudulent transfer claims against the movants in state court. During the bankruptcy, the trustee settled the estate’s claims against the movants, which settlement was approved by the bankruptcy court. After the bankruptcy was concluded, the respondents reactivated the state court litigation. The movants then filed their motion with the bankruptcy court, seeking to enjoin the prosecution of the state court litigation based on res judicata. The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. holds that the bankruptcy court appropriately denied the motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The state court litigation was not directed at the debtor or the debtor’s estate and would have no impact on the estate. While the trustee could have brought the claims while the bankruptcy was pending, after it was closed, the respondents could proceed with the claims. 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) and the Anti-Injunction Act also did not permit the bankruptcy to grant the requested relief. Opinion below.
2014-12-10 – in re ec morris corp