(Bankr. W.D. Ky. May 19, 2016)
(S.D. Ind. Mar. 28, 2016)
(6th Cir. B.A.P. Mar. 3, 2016)
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Oct. 12, 2017)
The bankruptcy court awards damages to the debtor for the creditor’s willful violation of the automatic stay. The debtor had an agreement with the tanning bed salon in which the salon would deduct a monthly payment from her debit card. Despite numerous notifications of the bankruptcy and the violation of the automatic stay, the salon continued to make the deductions post-petition. The court enters an award for damages that includes attorney fees and punitive damages. Opinion below.
Judge: Wise
Attorney for Debtor: Grant M. Axon
(6th Cir. Aug. 31, 2017)
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. June 29, 2017)
The bankruptcy court grants the defendants’ motion to dismiss in this adversary proceeding. The trustee sought to subordinate and recharacterize defendants’ claims under 11 U.S.C. § 510, avoid as fraudulent and preferential transfers certain transfers to the defendants, and disallow defendants’ claims. The court finds that the trustee fails to allege facts sufficient to support any of the claims. Opinion below.
Judge: Wise
(6th Cir. B.A.P. April 17, 2017)
The Sixth Circuit B.A.P reverses the bankruptcy court’s order granting the U.S. Trustee a second extension of the deadline to file a nondischargeability complaint and reverses the subsequent judgment denying the debtor a Chapter 7 discharge. The court finds that the U.S. Trustee failed to establish sufficient cause for an additional extension under Bankruptcy Rule 4004(b). Opinion below.
Judge: Harrison
Attorneys for U.S. Trustee: Amy L. Good, Scott Robert Belhorn, Sharon Nollsch
Attorney for Debtor: Lee Raymond Kravitz
(S.D. Ind. Feb. 27, 2017)
The district court dismisses the appeal because the bankruptcy court’s order was not final and appealable. The creditor had filed an emergency motion for stay relief to proceed with acquiring title to the debtor’s real property through Indiana’s tax sale and tax deed procedures. The bankruptcy court denied the motion without prejudice. The district court holds that the bankruptcy court’s order was not final, in part because it was without prejudice and appeared to be a preliminary decision. Opinion below.
Judge: Young
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Jan. 6, 2017)
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 15, 2016)