(7th Cir. Dec. 22, 2016)

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Dec. 27, 2016)

The bankruptcy court dismisses the creditor’s non-dischargeability complaint under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6). The creditor conceded that the debt was based on a breach of contract claim. However, the creditor alleged the debt was converted to a non-dischargeable debt based on the debtor’s post-judgment efforts to avoid collection. The court finds that the creditor failed to state a claim in part because the alleged behavior did not result in the debt sought to be declared non-dischargeable. Opinion below.

Judge: Schaaf

(N.D. Ind. Dec. 22, 2016)

The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s order lifting the stay to permit the creditor to proceed with the real property foreclosure action. The debtor failed to provide factual or legal support for his claims of fraud by the creditor. Opinion below.

Judge: Miller

Plaintiff: Pro Se

Attorneys for Defendants: Dykema Gossett PLLC, Jordan S. Huttenlocker, Louis S. Chronowski

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Dec. 22, 2016)

(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. E.D. Ky. Dec. 6, 2016)

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 28, 2016)

The bankruptcy court enters summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in this 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) nondischargeability action. The plaintiffs had obtained a state court default judgment against the debtor for damages caused to them when the debtor drove to their home and shot one of the plaintiffs and injured the other plaintiff with flying debris. The court holds that collateral estoppel bars the debtor from relitigating the issue of whether the debtor caused a willful and malicious injury to the plaintiffs. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

The Sixth Circuit affirms the 2015 consent order specifying the manner in which certain provisions of the confirmed Chapter 11 plan would apply to a class of claim holders. The Korean Claimants objected, arguing that the district court lacked authority to enter the consent order and that the consent order was an impermissible modification of the distribution agreement. The court holds that the court had the requisite authority to enter the consent order and it merely clarified the distribution agreement rather than modified it. Opinion below.

Judge: Kethledge

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 22, 2016)

The bankruptcy court grants the creditor’s motion to modify the stay to allow the creditor to proceed with the state court real property foreclosure action. The court finds that cause exists for stay relief for reasons including that this second bankruptcy filing by the debtor was pending for three months, the debtor’s plan depended on a sale of the property, the debtor had not taken any action to proceed with the sale, and there was no proof that the debtor’s spouse (co-owner of the property) would consent to the sale. Opinion below.

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Nov. 16, 2016)