(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.

(E.D. Ky. Oct. 6, 2017)

The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s order granting the trustee’s motion to dismiss the complaint. The trustee has the exclusive right to pursue claims asserted in the complaint. The appellant’s arguments that the lawsuits were distinct are rejected. If the appellant and trustee could both pursue the claims there would be a significant chance of a double recovery. Opinion below.

Judge: Wilhoit

(7th Cir. Aug. 14, 2017)

The Seventh Circuit reverses the district court and holds that certain funds held by the debtor were held in trust for the appellant and other creditors in the same customer class. The funds therefore were not property of the estate that should be distributed pro rata to all creditors. Opinion below.

Judge: Hamilton

Attorneys for Appellant: Foley & Lardner LLP, Stephen Bedell, Robert Seth Bressler, Geoffrey S. Goodman, David B. Goroff, Thomas P. Krebs, William J. McKenna, Jr.