Fulltext Search

Liebzeit v. Intercity State Bank (In re Blanchard), 520 B.R. 740 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2014) –

A Chapter 7 trustee sought to avoid a mortgage on the debtors’ property using the “strong arm” powers of a hypothetical bona fide purchaser of real estate.  The complication was that the debtors sold the real estate on land contract before they granted the mortgage.

New Bern Riverfront Dev., LLC v Weaver Cooke Constr., LLC (In re New Bern Riverfront Dev. LLC), 521 B.R. 718 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2014) 

The debtor made claims against a surety that issued a performance bond in connection with a construction contract.  The surety contended that it was not liable for the consequential damage claims.

Southside, LLC v SunTrust Bank (In re Southside, LLC), 520 B.R. 914 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2014) –

A debtor objected to attorney fees included in the proof of claim filed by a mortgagee, and the mortgagee moved for relief from the automatic stay to exercise its rights under a security deed securing the debtor’s guaranty based in part on the debtor’s lack of equity in the property.

Broadfoot v. Jamestown Mgmt. Corp. (In re Int’l BioChemical Indus., Inc.), 521 B.R. 395 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2014) –

A chapter 7 trustee objected to the claim of a creditor/lessor on the basis that it should be disallowed because the lessor failed to turn over property recoverable using the trustee’s voiding powers, or alternatively, that it constituted a claim for lease termination damages that was subject to a cap.

In re Trackwell, 520 B.R. 788 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 2014) –

The successful bidder at a bankruptcy auction of a ranch claimed that a cattle chute was included in the sold assets.  The debtors disagreed.  Resolution of the dispute turned on whether the cattle chute constituted a fixture that was part of the real estate.

Branch Bank & Trust Co. v. Michael’s Enterprises of Virginia, Inc. (In re Michael’s Enterprises of Virginia, Inc.), 519 B.R. 916 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2014)  –

A mortgage lender sought sanctions against the debtor, its sole shareholder and its attorney.  It alleged that the bankruptcy petition was filed for an improper purpose.

On January 21, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit entered an opinion holding that an authorized UCC-3 termination statement is effective, for purposes of Delaware’s Uniform Commercial Code (the “UCC”), to terminate the perfection of the underlying security interest even though the secured lender never intended to extinguish the security interest and mistakenly authorized the filing.1

Background

n re Sterling Bluff Investors, LLC, 515 B.R. 902 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2014) –

A mortgagee moved to dismiss a real estate debtor’s chapter 11 case, or in the alternative for relief from the automatic stay.  It contended that the debtor filed bankruptcy in bad faith, and that this was a “single asset real estate” case subject to special provisions regarding its entitlement to relief from the stay.

In re Castle Home Builders, Inc., 520 B.R. 98 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2014) –

The debtors obtained confirmation of plans of reorganization that restructured prepetition mortgage loans.  When the servicer for some of the loans continued to ignore the terms of the plans, the reorganized debtors sought enforcement of the court’s confirmation order and sanctions.