(Bankr. S.D. Ind. May 23, 2016)

The bankruptcy court sustains the creditor’s objection to the proposed Chapter 13 plan, finding the creditor’s expert more credible than the debtor’s expert as to valuation of the debtor’s mobile home. Thus, the the creditor’s secured claim was higher than the amount provided for in the plan. The court also holds that certain of the appliances in the home are not accessions and thus are not subject to the creditor’s lien. Opinion below.

Judge: Moberly

(7th Cir. Apr. 5, 2016)

(7th Cir. Mar. 4, 2016)

(6th Cir. Nov. 14, 2017)

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Sep. 15, 2017)

The bankruptcy court denies the lender’s motion to dismiss the Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The lender argued that the party signing the debtor’s petition did not have the requisite authority to commence a bankruptcy case for the debtor. The bankruptcy court finds that amendments to the debtor’s operating agreement were made for the sole purpose of eliminating the debtor’s ability to file for bankruptcy without the lender’s consent. The court finds this violates Federal public policy and the provisions are unenforceable. Opinion below.

Judge: Schaaf

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. July 17, 2017)

The bankruptcy court dismisses the debtor’s complaint seeking to avoid a transfer to the bank defendant. The transfer consisted of the Bank exercising its contractual setoff right and applying funds in the debtor’s bank account to the Bank’s claim. The transfer occurred while the bankruptcy case was dismissed. The debtor fails to state a claim that is plausible on its face. Opinion below.

Judge: Schaaf

(W.D. Ky. May 2, 2017)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Mar. 9, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants summary judgment in favor of the creditor in this adversary proceeding in which the debtor alleged violations of the automatic stay and claims under the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act. The court holds that the creditor bank’s restriction of the debtor’s electronic privileges with respect to her accounts did not violate the automatic stay. Opinion below.

Judge: Stout

Attorney for Debtor: Ross Benjamin Neuhauser

Attorney for Creditor: Christopher M. Hill

The bankruptcy court enters judgment in favor of the debtor, dismissing claims under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) and § 727(a)(2)(A). The plaintiff argued that the debtor executed a scheme that intentionally injured the plaintiff because the debtor became unable to pay on promissory notes. The Court finds that the plaintiff did not establish that the debtor willfully and maliciously injured the plaintiff.

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