(U.S. Sup. Ct. May 15, 2017)

(6th Cir. Mar. 20, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s order denying the debtor’s claim for an exemption under 11 U.S.C. § 522(d). The real property was fully encumbered by secured claims and thus the debtor had no equity in the property. The court applies its prior decision in In re Baldridge. The trustee also argued that the debtor’s appeal was moot under 11 U.S.C. § 363(m) and other authority but failed to meet the trustee’s burden on the issue. Opinion below.

Judge: Merritt

Attorney for Debtor: Gary Boren

(6th Cir. B.A.P. Feb. 2, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in the nondischargeability action. Collateral estoppel prevented the debtor from defending against the claim that the debt arose from fraud and a willful and malicious injury. A Tennessee state court had entered a default judgment against the debtor that included specific factual findings that established a claim for nondischargeability under 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(4), and (a)(6). Opinion below.

Judge: Opperman

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Dec. 1, 2016)

Following trial, the bankruptcy court excepts from discharge a debt arising from a loan, but holds the plaintiff failed to meet its burden with respect to other debts. The court also finds that a lien was not created where there was no proof of an actual levy, but a seperate judgment lien is held valid. The court denies the debtor’s motion to avoid the lien. Opinion below.

Judge: Stout

Attorneys for Plaintiff: Thomas, Arvin & Adams, James G. Adams, III, David E. Arvin

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Oct. 11, 2016)

(6th Cir. B.A.P. Aug. 4, 2016)

(7th Cir. June 10, 2016)

The Seventh Circuit reverses, holding the bankruptcy court applied too narrow of a baseline payment range to the creditor’s ordinary course defense in this preference action. While this court agreed that there were a few payments outside the ordinary course, the new value defense applied to completely offset those payments. Opinion below.

Judge: Sykes

Attorneys for Appellant: Nixon Peabody LLP, Richard Scott Alsterda, Theodore Eric Harman

Attorneys for Appellee: Clark Hill PLC, Pamela Joy Leichtling, Scott N. Schreiber

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. April 11, 2016)

Irvin v. Faller (In re Faller)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Mar. 17, 2016)

In April 2005, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention Consumer Protection Act (“BAPCPA”) was signed into law, representing the most extensive revisions to the bankruptcy code in 35 years. The BAPCPA was the product of more than a decade of legislative efforts. Its stated purpose was to curb perceived consumer abuse of the bankruptcy system. At the time of its enactment, many bankruptcy practitioners, judges and others questioned whether such a drastic change to the law was necessary and expressed concern about the impact the BAPCPA would have on consumers and the system as a whole.