(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. June 21, 2017)
The bankruptcy court grants the defendant’s motion to dismiss the trustee’s complaint, which sought to avoid transfers from debtors to the defendant. The complaint failed to state a claim, in part because the defendant could not be deemed an “insider” of the debtor. The court additionally finds that the complaint contains insufficient facts to support various other claims. Opinion below.
Judge: Wise
Attorneys for Trustee: Bingham Greenbaum Doll LLP, Claude R. Bowles, Jr., Daniel J. Donnellon, James R. Irving, April A. Wimberg
(B.A.P. 6th Cir. June 20, 2017)
In what may prove either to be a landmark decision or a mere outliner confined to its unique facts, the Court of Appeal for Ontario (the "Court of Appeal") in Romspen Investment Corporation v. Courtice Auto Wreckers Limited, et al.1 has overturned an earlier decision and lifted the stay of proceedings against a court-appointed receiver to allow a union to proceed with a certification application and an unfair labour practice complaint against the receiver.
(S.D. Ind. June 2, 2017)
(6th Cir. B.A.P. May 18, 2017)
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. May 18, 2017)
(U.S. Sup. Ct. May 15, 2017)
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. May 12, 2017)
The bankruptcy court enters summary judgment against the debtor holding the debt nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4). The plaintiffs inherited a judgment against the debtor that was based on the debtor’s theft of the decedent’s property. The plaintiffs were the proper parties to bring the claim, as the decedent’s estate assigned the judgment to them, and the requirements of § 523(a)(4) were satisfied. Opinion below.
Judge: Lloyd
Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Crain – Schuette Attorneys, Amanda Lisenby Blakeman
(W.D. Ky. May 2, 2017)