(7th Cir. July 28, 2016)
(6th Cir. Mar. 28, 2016)
The Sixth Circuit affirms the order granting summary judgment to the creditor, finding a debt nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). Summary judgment was appropriate because the debtor was collaterally estopped from defending against the fraud claim. The creditor had obtained a default judgment against the debtor, post-petition, in another court as a sanction. The court holds that the entry of the default judgment was not a violation of the automatic stay. Opinion below.
Judge: Boggs
Attorney for Debtor: Jonathan Rudman Bunn
(E.D. Ky. July 8, 2016)
The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s decision finding the debt dischargeable. The debtor sold a television to the plaintiffs, claiming it was a “high definition” television.The plaintiffs disputed that characterization and obtained a judgment in state court for the purchase price plus punitive damages. However, the court finds that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proof in showing the requisite elements of § 523(a)(2)(A). Opinion below.
Judge: Schaaf
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Mar. 31, 2016)
The bankruptcy court grants in part and denies in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. The debtor asserted numerous claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and related state law causes of action in his complaint. The court finds the debtor does not have standing to assert certain claims under FCRA. The court also addresses issues of preemption under FCRA and various statutes of limitations. Opinion below.
Judge: Wise
Debtor: Pro Se
(Bankr. S.D. Ind. July 8, 2016)
The court overrules the debtor’s ex-spouse’s objection to confirmation of the Chapter 13 plan. The creditor argued her claim could not be discharged because it was a domestic support obligation. However, the court analyzes the divorce decree and determines that the payments ordered were not tied to health or employment prospects or the creditor’s ability to support herself. Under the circumstances, the court concludes the claim is not for a domestic support obligation and may be discharged. Opinion below.
Judge: Moberly
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Mar. 21, 2016)
(W.D. Ky. July 7, 2016)
(7th Cir. Mar. 18, 2016)
(E.D. Ky. Bankr. June 24, 2016)
In this Chapter 13, the bankruptcy court rules on the objection to confirmation and finds that the creditor’s expert’s valuation of the debtor’s mobile home was more reliable than the valuations provided by the debtor’s experts. The creditor’s expert testimony was not hearsay, as it was reasonable for the expert to rely on information about the particular mobile home model provided by the manufacturer. The debtor’s experts failed to obtain knowledge of the particular model before determining their values. Opinion below.
Judge: Schaaf
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Mar. 8, 2016)
The bankruptcy court sustains the debtors’ objection to the creditor’s claim. The court determines that the creditor failed to establish that the transaction with the debtors was intended as a loan. Instead, the parties had formed a partnership with the creditor making capital contributions, rather than loans. Opinion below.