(7th Cir. June 10, 2016)
The Seventh Circuit reverses, holding the bankruptcy court applied too narrow of a baseline payment range to the creditor’s ordinary course defense in this preference action. While this court agreed that there were a few payments outside the ordinary course, the new value defense applied to completely offset those payments. Opinion below.
Judge: Sykes
Attorneys for Appellant: Nixon Peabody LLP, Richard Scott Alsterda, Theodore Eric Harman
Attorneys for Appellee: Clark Hill PLC, Pamela Joy Leichtling, Scott N. Schreiber
(Bankr. S.D. Ind. April 11, 2016)
Irvin v. Faller (In re Faller)
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Mar. 17, 2016)
In April 2005, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention Consumer Protection Act (“BAPCPA”) was signed into law, representing the most extensive revisions to the bankruptcy code in 35 years. The BAPCPA was the product of more than a decade of legislative efforts. Its stated purpose was to curb perceived consumer abuse of the bankruptcy system. At the time of its enactment, many bankruptcy practitioners, judges and others questioned whether such a drastic change to the law was necessary and expressed concern about the impact the BAPCPA would have on consumers and the system as a whole.
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 22, 2017)
(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Sep. 14, 2017)
The bankruptcy court grants the university’s motion for summary judgment, determining that the student loan debt is nondischargeable. The debtor filed the adversary proceeding alleging repayment would present an undue hardship. The debtor did not respond to the university’s motion and failed to present any evidence to satisfy the Brunner test. Opinion below.
Judge: Carr
Attorney for Debtor: Eric C. Redman, Redman Ludwig PC
Attorney for University: Constantine Alexander Hortis, Maryland Attorney General
(7th Cir. July 18, 2017)
The Seventh Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s order sustaining the trustee’s objection to the debtors’ $30,000 exemption in trust assets. The debtors argued the spendthrift provisions in the trust prevented the interest from becoming property of the estate. The court holds that the trust interest fully vested before the debtors filed bankruptcy. An exemption was inappropriate and the interest was property of the estate. Opinion below.
Judge: Sykes
Attorney for Debtors: Julia D. Mannix
Attorney for Trustee: Zane Zielinski
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. May 12, 2017)
The bankruptcy court enters summary judgment against the debtor holding the debt nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4). The plaintiffs inherited a judgment against the debtor that was based on the debtor’s theft of the decedent’s property. The plaintiffs were the proper parties to bring the claim, as the decedent’s estate assigned the judgment to them, and the requirements of § 523(a)(4) were satisfied. Opinion below.
Judge: Lloyd
Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Crain – Schuette Attorneys, Amanda Lisenby Blakeman
The bankruptcy court denies the defendants’ motion to dismiss, with the exception of one claim for equitable subordination against one of the defendants. The complaint filed by the trustee asserted counts for veil piercing, fraud and fraudulent transfer, preference avoidance, breach of fiduciary duty, and a demand for accounting and turnover. Opinion below.
Judge: Moberly
Attorney for Trustee: Mark A. Warsco
Attorneys for Defendants: Alerding Castor Hewitt LLP, Michael J. Alerding, Julia E. Dimick, Mitchell Alan Greene, Anthony Frederick Roach; Abraham Murphy
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Feb. 1, 2017)
The bankruptcy court denies the creditor’s request for default rate interest on the secured claim. The value of the real property securing the claim was in excess of the claim amount. Case law establishes that there is a presumption in favor of the contractual rate of interest, but it is subject to rebuttal when evidence establishes the default rate is significantly higher without justification. Here, the default rate doubled the non-default rate and the court finds there was no justification under the evidence presented. Opinion below.