(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Aug. 28, 2017)
The bankruptcy court denies confirmation of the debtors’ proposed Chapter 12 plan. The court first determines that the debtors’ timber operations constitute a “farming operation” under § 101(21). Those operations are ongoing rather than a single cut of all timber at one time. The debtors are eligible to proceed under Chapter 12. However, the debtors failed to provide sufficient evidence that the proposed plan was feasible. Opinion below.
Judge: Wise
Attorney for Debtors: Michael L. Baker
(6th Cir. B.A.P. July 3, 2017)
(Bankr. S.D. Ind. April 24, 2017)
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Mar. 9, 2017)
The bankruptcy court grants the secured creditor’s motion for stay relief because it was inadequately protected as a result of there being insufficient funds to make the first payment to the creditor under the confirmed Chapter 12 plan. Opinion below.
Judge: Lloyd
Atttorneys for the Debtor: Kaplan & Partners LLP, James Edwin McGhee, III, Charity Bird Neukomm
Attorneys for Creditor: Andrews Law Firm, PLLC, Ashley Sanders Cox
(6th Cir. B.A.P. Jan. 17, 2017)
(S.D. Ind. Nov. 18, 2016)
The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s holding that a tax penalty is dischargeable if the penalty is described by either 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7)(A) or (B). Opinion below.
Judge: McKinney
Attorney for Appellant: Peter Sklarew
Attorneys for Debtors: Camden & Meridew, PC, Julie A. Camden
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Sep. 12, 2016)
The bankruptcy court grants the motion to terminate the automatic stay. The creditor and the debtor entered into a sale contract prepetition for sale of the debtor’s real property. The debtor argued that the sale contract terminated prepetition, and the creditor argued that it should be permitted to pursue its claims on the contract in state court. The court finds that the debtor has no equity in the property and that it is not necessary to an effective reorganization. Thus, stay relief is appropriate. Opinion below.
Judge: Lloyd
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. June 23, 2016)
The bankruptcy court applies Kentucky’s borrowing statute, KRS § 413.320, to determine the applicable statute of limitations for the debtor’s defamation, breach of contract, and fraud claims. The court analyzes where each claim accrued and dismisses some but not all of the debtor’s claims. Opinion below.
Judge: Wise
Attorney for Debtor: Dann Law Firm, Brian D. Flick
Attorney for Defendants: Christopher M. Hill, John R. Wirthlin, Frost Brown Todd LLC, Patricia K. Burgess, Stephanie Smiley
(6th Cir. B.A.P. Apr. 26, 2016)
(7th Cir. Mar. 22, 2016)