(7th Cir. Apr. 14, 2016)

The Seventh Circuit applies Wisconsin state law and holds that a mortgage can attach a lien to a vendor’s interest in a real estate contract and that the lender perfected the lien by recording in the county land records rather than filing a UCC-1 financing statement. The trustee is unable to avoid the lien. Opinion below.

Judge: Hamilton

Attorneys for Trustee: Michael F. Dubis, Christopher R. Schultz

Attorneys for Appellees: Ruffi Law Offices, Sara Lynn Ruffi, Lund Law Office, Brad M. Lund

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

(Sixth Circuit Apr. 7, 2016)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Apr. 8, 2016)

The bankruptcy court addresses whether certain tax penalty claims are dischargeable. The court finds certain penalties are dischargeable because they arose out of tax returns filed outside the three-year window provided in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7). However, other penalties were not dischargeable because they arose out of a tax return filed within the three-year window. Opinion below.

Judge: Carr

Attorney for Debtors: Camden & Meridew, P.C., Julie A. Camden

(7th Cir. Apr. 5, 2016)

(N.D. Ind. Apr. 5, 2016)

The district court grants the defendants’ motion to dismiss the appeal for being untimely. The debtor filed his notice of appeal outside the 14-day period. Upon the defendants’ motion to dismiss the appeal, the debtor filed a motion to extend the deadline to file the notice of appeal, but that motion was also untimely. Opinion below.

Judge: Simon

Debtor: Pro Se

Attorneys for Defendants: Dykema Gossett PLLC, Louis S. Chronowski, Maria A. Diakoumakis

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Apr. 8, 2016)

The bankruptcy court rules that the government’s claim for penalties incurred by the debtor for false representations in unemployment benefit applications are not dischargeable. The debtor conceded that the debt for repayment of benefits was not dischargeable but disputed that the penalties imposed were dischargeable. The court finds that the penalties arose out of the fraudulent representations and thus were not dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2). Opinion below.

Judge: Lorch

(W.D. Ky. Mar. 31, 2016)

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Mar. 31, 2016)

The bankruptcy court grants in part and denies in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. The debtor asserted numerous claims under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and related state law causes of action in his complaint. The court finds the debtor does not have standing to assert certain claims under FCRA. The court also addresses issues of preemption under FCRA and various statutes of limitations. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Debtor: Pro Se

(6th Cir. Mar. 28, 2016)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the order granting summary judgment to the creditor, finding a debt nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). Summary judgment was appropriate because the debtor was collaterally estopped from defending against the fraud claim. The creditor had obtained a default judgment against the debtor, post-petition, in another court as a sanction. The court holds that the entry of the default judgment was not a violation of the automatic stay. Opinion below.

Judge: Boggs

Attorney for Debtor: Jonathan Rudman Bunn