(7th Cir. Aug. 23, 2016)
(7th Cir. June 13, 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
(7th Cir. Mar. 18, 2016)
(S.D. Ind. Feb. 5, 2016)
The district court grants the unopposed motion to withdraw the reference and the motion to dismiss the adversary proceeding with prejudice. The court discusses the standard for withdrawal motions, and finds that the standard is met here. The claims arise out of a contractual relationship outside the bankruptcy and would not be resolved through the claims resolution process. Thus, the bankruptcy court could not issue a final judgment in the matter absent the movant’s consent. Opinion below.
(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Oct. 19, 2017)
(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Aug. 21, 2017)
(Bankr. S.D. Ind. June 26, 2017)
The bankruptcy court dismisses without prejudice the debtor’s complaint against a foreclosing creditor because the court concludes it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The debtor filed the complaint alleging numerous causes of action, including violations of the automatic stay. However, the alleged acts occurred at a time when the subject property was no longer property of the estate. Opinion below.
Judge: Carr
Attorneys for Debtor: Sabin, Shea & Des Jardines LLC, J. Andrew Sabin
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Apr. 13, 2017)
(6th Cir. Feb. 23, 2017)
The Sixth Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s decision to confirm the debtor’s Chapter 13 plan, which included payment of overdue property taxes under Tennessee law with an interest rate of 12%. The state argued that the interest rate should be 18% due to the additional 6% interest permitted under the applicable state statute for a default penalty. The court holds that the 12% provided in the “nonbankruptcy law” is applicable, while the 6% penalty is not applicable. Opinion below.
Judge: Stranch