(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Oct. 16, 2017)
The bankruptcy court overrules the Chapter 7 trustee’s objection to the debtor’s claimed exemption. The debtor moved to reopen her case, add a personal injury cause of action to her schedules, and claim an exemption in a portion of the recovery on the cause of action. The court holds that Law v. Siegel is applicable, and thus the court does not have authority to deny the exemption even if bad faith exists. Opinion below.
Judge: Lloyd
Attorney for Debtor: Darren K. Mexic
Trustee: Jerry Burns
(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Oct. 19, 2017)
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Oct. 12, 2017)
The bankruptcy court awards damages to the debtor for the creditor’s willful violation of the automatic stay. The debtor had an agreement with the tanning bed salon in which the salon would deduct a monthly payment from her debit card. Despite numerous notifications of the bankruptcy and the violation of the automatic stay, the salon continued to make the deductions post-petition. The court enters an award for damages that includes attorney fees and punitive damages. Opinion below.
Judge: Wise
Attorney for Debtor: Grant M. Axon
(6th Cir. Oct. 6, 2017)
The Sixth Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the 11 U.S.C. § 727 complaint. The plaintiff is the debtor’s ex-husband. The court holds that the plaintiff does not have standing to bring the complaint. The only debt owed to him was already nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15) because it was incurred in connection with a divorce decree. Opinion below.
Judge: Bush
Attorney for Appellant: Kenneth R. Beams
Appellee: Pro Se
(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
One overarching certainty of federal debt collection law seems to be prolonged uncertainty over its appropriate scope. Is this scope about to change yet again? One recent bill called the Practice of Law Technical Clarification Act of 2017, H.R. 1849, seeks to do just that.
(E.D. Ky. Oct. 3, 2017)
The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s interpretation of a final cash collateral order, holding the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in finding a carve-out for payment of professional fees included prepetition collateral of the lenders. The text of the order along with a review of the case record made clear that the parties had agreed the prepetition collateral was included. $2.4 million in fees were awarded. Opinion below.
Judge: Wilhoit
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Oct. 4, 2017)
The bankruptcy court grants in part the debtor’s motion to avoid a judicial lien on two parcels of real property. Applying the formula in 11 U.S.C. § 522(f), the court determines that the debtor’s exemption is impaired with respect to one parcel but not the other. Opinion below.
Judge: Schaaf
Attorneys for Debtor: Michael B. Baker, James R. Westenhoefer
Attorneys for Creditor: DelCotto Law Group PLLC, Sara A. Johnston
On October 4, 2017, the CFPB released an interim final rule and a proposed rule to amend certain provisions of its 2016 Mortgage Servicing Final Rule.
It is hard to peruse the internet or even mainstream media outlets without hearing about bitcoin. What is this ubiquitous bitcoin? It depends on whom you ask.
A CNN Money articled defined bitcoin as “a new currency that was created in 2009 by an unknown person using the alias Satoshi Nakamoto.” The IRS has recently defined bitcoin as an “intangible asset” for investors, making it subject to capital gains and loss treatment using the realization method.