(Bankr. E.D. Ky. June 6, 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
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Mar. 8, 2016)
The bankruptcy court sustains the debtors’ objection to the creditor’s claim. The court determines that the creditor failed to establish that the transaction with the debtors was intended as a loan. Instead, the parties had formed a partnership with the creditor making capital contributions, rather than loans. Opinion below.
(6th Cir. Jan. 27, 2016)
The Sixth Circuit affirms the district court’s finding that the Chapter 11 plan was proposed in bad faith. The plan proposed to pay small claims in full but over a 60-day period. This class of claims was technically impaired due to the delayed payment and it voted to accept the plan. The principle secured lender appealed. The Court finds that the plan was not proposed in good faith, as required by 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(3), because it was designed to circumvent § 1129(a)(10)’s requirement for an accepting impaired class of claims. Opinion below.
(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
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Aug. 4, 2017)
(S.D. Ind. June 2, 2017)
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Apr. 10, 2017)
The bankruptcy court grants in part and denies in part the defendant lender’s motion to compel arbitration of claims asserted in the debtor’s complaint. The court first finds that the arbitration agreement is valid and that the claims are within its scope. The court then holds that, for certain claims, arbitration would conflict with the underlying purposes of the bankruptcy code. Thus, those claims remain with the bankruptcy court, while the other claims are to be arbitrated. Opinion below.
Judge: Wise
(S.D. Ind. Feb. 13, 2017)
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Dec. 27, 2016)
The bankruptcy court dismisses the creditor’s non-dischargeability complaint under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6). The creditor conceded that the debt was based on a breach of contract claim. However, the creditor alleged the debt was converted to a non-dischargeable debt based on the debtor’s post-judgment efforts to avoid collection. The court finds that the creditor failed to state a claim in part because the alleged behavior did not result in the debt sought to be declared non-dischargeable. Opinion below.
Judge: Schaaf