(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Apr. 26, 2016)
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Apr. 22, 2016)
(7th Cir. Apr. 14, 2016)
The Seventh Circuit applies Wisconsin state law and holds that a mortgage can attach a lien to a vendor’s interest in a real estate contract and that the lender perfected the lien by recording in the county land records rather than filing a UCC-1 financing statement. The trustee is unable to avoid the lien. Opinion below.
Judge: Hamilton
Attorneys for Trustee: Michael F. Dubis, Christopher R. Schultz
Attorneys for Appellees: Ruffi Law Offices, Sara Lynn Ruffi, Lund Law Office, Brad M. Lund
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Apr. 15, 2016)
The bankruptcy court dismisses the plaintiff’s complaint because it failed to state a claim. The complaint was based on a factual assertion that the plaintiff’s predecessor had an interest in certain bank account funds. However, the prior 11 U.S.C. § 363 sale order and confirmation order adjudicated otherwise. Thus, the claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Opinion below.
Judge: Wise
Attorneys for Plaintiff: Philip G. Fairbanks, M. Austin Mehr, John M. Simms
(Bankr. S.D. Ind. April 11, 2016)
(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Apr. 8, 2016)
The bankruptcy court addresses whether certain tax penalty claims are dischargeable. The court finds certain penalties are dischargeable because they arose out of tax returns filed outside the three-year window provided in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7). However, other penalties were not dischargeable because they arose out of a tax return filed within the three-year window. Opinion below.
Judge: Carr
Attorney for Debtors: Camden & Meridew, P.C., Julie A. Camden
(Sixth Circuit Apr. 7, 2016)
(7th Cir. Apr. 5, 2016)
(N.D. Ind. Apr. 5, 2016)
The district court grants the defendants’ motion to dismiss the appeal for being untimely. The debtor filed his notice of appeal outside the 14-day period. Upon the defendants’ motion to dismiss the appeal, the debtor filed a motion to extend the deadline to file the notice of appeal, but that motion was also untimely. Opinion below.
Judge: Simon
Debtor: Pro Se
Attorneys for Defendants: Dykema Gossett PLLC, Louis S. Chronowski, Maria A. Diakoumakis
(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Apr. 8, 2016)
The bankruptcy court rules that the government’s claim for penalties incurred by the debtor for false representations in unemployment benefit applications are not dischargeable. The debtor conceded that the debt for repayment of benefits was not dischargeable but disputed that the penalties imposed were dischargeable. The court finds that the penalties arose out of the fraudulent representations and thus were not dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2). Opinion below.
Judge: Lorch