(Bankr. E.D. Ky. June 21, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the defendant’s motion to dismiss the trustee’s complaint, which sought to avoid transfers from debtors to the defendant. The complaint failed to state a claim, in part because the defendant could not be deemed an “insider” of the debtor. The court additionally finds that the complaint contains insufficient facts to support various other claims. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorneys for Trustee: Bingham Greenbaum Doll LLP, Claude R. Bowles, Jr., Daniel J. Donnellon, James R. Irving, April A. Wimberg

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Apr. 11, 2017)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Feb. 15, 2017)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Dec. 22, 2016)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Oct. 28, 2016)

The bankruptcy court enters an order holding in abeyance the motion to dismiss the Chapter 13 case. The court also denies confirmation of the proposed plan but holds the case open for further filings. The required maintenance payment could not be satisfied by the monthly payments in the proposed plan. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorneys for Debtor: Naber & Joyner, J. Gregory Joyner

Attorney for Creditor: Joseph S. Elder II

(6th Cir. B.A.P. Aug. 4, 2016)

(6th Cir. June 6, 2016)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the B.A.P. and dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Following the principal creditor’s objection, the bankruptcy court denied the trustee and debtors’ motion to approve a settlement of a legal malpractice claim held by the estate. The debtors appealed. The court finds that the appealed order was not a final order that could be appealed because the debtors were free to propose a new settlement for approval. Opinion below.

Judge: Kethledge

(Sixth Circuit Apr. 7, 2016)

(7th Cir. Mar. 11, 2016)

(S.D. Ind. Feb. 2, 2016)

The district court grants the creditor’s motion to dismiss the appeal as untimely. The pro se debtors filed their notice of appeal of a stay relief order three days after the 14-day period per Bankruptcy Rule 8002 had expired. The debtors’ argument that the motion for relief from stay was not served upon them properly was not supported by the record and even if the allegations were true, they failed to explain the untimeliness of the notice of appeal after the order granting stay relief was entered. Opinion below.