(6th Cir. B.A.P. Mar. 3, 2016)
(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Feb. 24, 2016)
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Feb. 18, 2016)
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Feb. 16, 2016)
(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Feb. 16, 2016)
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Feb. 12, 2016)
(S.D. Ind. Feb. 8, 2016)
The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s decision holding that the debtor was collaterally estopped from challenging the amount of the mortgage lender’s claim. The lender had obtained judgment in a prepetition state court foreclosure action, in which the debtor had presented the same arguments regarding the loan balance calculation. The district court finds that the doctrine of collateral estoppel applies and the claim amount could not be re-litigated in the bankruptcy. Opinion below.
(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.
(E.D. Ky. Feb. 5, 2016)
The district court denies the motion for stay pending the appeal of the bankruptcy court’s order. The bankruptcy court had ordered that the party moving to reopen the bankruptcy case deposit funds into escrow as a condition to reopening the case. The court held that the party must show at a minimum serious questions going to the merits to obtain such a stay, but the party failed to do so. Opinion below.
(7th Cir. Feb. 4, 2016)
The Seventh Circuit affirms the district court’s reversal of the bankruptcy court. The debtor claimed an exemption for a rare first edition Book of Mormon under Illinois’s exemption statutes, which permit an exemption for “a bible.” The trustee argued that the debtor should be permitted only to exempt one of the debtor’s other copies, because the rare copy was worth approximately $10,000 and, the trustee argued, the statute was being misused in this case. The court holds that the plain wording of the statute permitted the claimed exemption. Opinion below.