(6th Cir. May 2, 2017)
The Sixth Circuit reverses the bankruptcy court, finding that the assignment of rents acted as a complete transfer of ownership and the assignor did not retain any interest in the rents. The court analyzes Michigan law on such assignments and concludes that because the debtor/assignor had no rights in the rents assigned, they were not property of the bankruptcy estate. Opinion below.
Judge: Stranch
Attorney for Appellant: Robert N. Bassel
Attorney for Appellee: Jeremy S. Friedberg
(6th Cir. B.A.P. Mar. 9, 2017)
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Jan. 17, 2017)
The bankruptcy court grants the creditor’s motion for sanctions, and awards the creditor her attorney fees. The debtor filed the Chapter 13 petition for the stated purpose of obtaining more time to obtain a reduction in his maintenance obligation owed to the creditor in the state court. The bankruptcy court finds that this was a violation of Bankruptcy Rule 9011(b). Opinion below.
Judge: Lloyd
Attorney for Debtor: Naber & Joyner, J. Gregory Joyner
Attorney for Creditor: Joseph S. Elder II
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Nov. 16, 2016)
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Sep. 16, 2016)
(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. W.D. Ky. May 17, 2016)
(6th Cir. B.A.P. Mar. 28, 2016)
The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing the plaintiffs’ nondischargeability complaint. The plaintiffs had suffered a loss when they purchased a condominium unit and hired a builder to complete its construction. The builder accepted funds but failed to complete the work. Each of the plaintiffs’ claims under 11 U.S.C. § 523 were properly dismissed, principally because they failed to establish that the builder was the debtors’ agent. Opinion below.
Judge: Harrison
(6th Cir. B.A.P. Mar. 3, 2016)
The Sixth Circuit affirms the B.A.P., holding the entry of summary judgment in favor of the creditors in the nondischargeability action was appropriate. The creditors obtained a default judgment against the debtor in Tennessee state court. The default judgment was on the merits and the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied. Opinion below.
Judge: Rogers
Appellant: Pro Se
Attorneys for Creditors: Keating, Muething & Klekamp, Joseph E. Lehnert, Brian P. Muething, Jason V. Stitt