(6th Cir. B.A.P. July 3, 2017)

(6th Cir. B.A.P. Nov. 7, 2016)

(6th Cir. Jan. 27, 2016)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the district court’s finding that the Chapter 11 plan was proposed in bad faith. The plan proposed to pay small claims in full but over a 60-day period. This class of claims was technically impaired due to the delayed payment and it voted to accept the plan. The principle secured lender appealed. The Court finds that the plan was not proposed in good faith, as required by 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(3), because it was designed to circumvent  § 1129(a)(10)’s requirement for an accepting impaired class of claims. Opinion below.

(6th Cir. B.A.P. June 28, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s entry of summary judgment, finding the debt owed to the plaintiff nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). The plaintiff had obtained a judgment against the debtors in state court on a conversion claim. The court holds that collateral estoppel applies and the elements of § 523(a)(6) were satisfied by the state court judgment. Opinion below.

Judge: Delk

Attorneys for Debtors: Schram, Behan & Behan, Michael R. Behan; Eiler Law Firm, Christian Michael Eiler

(6th Cir. Oct. 25, 2016)

(6th Cir. B.A.P. Jan. 28, 2016)

(B.A.P. 6th Cir. June 20, 2017)

(6th Cir. Oct. 12, 2016)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s order denying the creditor’s motion to reopen the case. The debtor’s ex-spouse filed the motion four years after the debtor received his discharge. The ex-spouse argued that an obligation arising out of their divorce proceedings should be declared non-dischargeable. The court holds the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. Opinion below.

Per Curiam

Attorney for creditor: Aaron J. Scheinfield

(6th Cir. B.A.P. May 18, 2017)

(6th Cir. Oct. 3, 2016)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the district court’s dismissal of the pensioners’ challenge to the confirmation order entered in the Chapter 9 bankruptcy case filed by the City of Detroit, Michigan. The pensioners filed the action to challenge the plan’s reduction of their benefits. The Court holds that the doctrine of equitable mootness applies. The pensioners did not obtain a stay, the plan has been substantially consummated, and many actions have been undertaken or completed under the plan. Opinion below.

Judge: Batchelder