(6th Cir. B.A.P. Jan. 28, 2016)
(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Oct. 20, 2017)
The bankruptcy court dismisses the debtor’s complaint against the lender, which asserted claims related to the lender’s foreclosure of its mortgage lien in state court. The court dismisses the stay violation claim, because the property was not property of the estate at the time of the alleged acts, and dismisses the remaining claims because the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Opinion below.
Judge: Carr
Attorney for Debtor: Sawin, Shea & Des Jardines LLC, J. Andrew Sawin
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Sep. 1, 2017)
The bankruptcy court finds in favor of the debtor in this nondischargeability action. The creditor’s claim was based on missing restaurant equipment following the termination of a real property lease to the debtor. The court finds the creditor failed to present evidence establishing that the debtor was responsible for the loss. The elements of §§ 523(a)(2), (4), and (6) were not satisfied. Opinion below.
Judge: Fulton
Attorneys for Debtor: Farmer & Wright, PLLC, Todd A. Farmer
Attorney for Creditor: Steve Vidmer
(6th Cir. B.A.P. July 3, 2017)
(Bankr. S.D. Ind. April 24, 2017)
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Mar. 9, 2017)
The bankruptcy court grants the secured creditor’s motion for stay relief because it was inadequately protected as a result of there being insufficient funds to make the first payment to the creditor under the confirmed Chapter 12 plan. Opinion below.
Judge: Lloyd
Atttorneys for the Debtor: Kaplan & Partners LLP, James Edwin McGhee, III, Charity Bird Neukomm
Attorneys for Creditor: Andrews Law Firm, PLLC, Ashley Sanders Cox
(6th Cir. B.A.P. Jan. 17, 2017)
(S.D. Ind. Nov. 18, 2016)
The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s holding that a tax penalty is dischargeable if the penalty is described by either 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(7)(A) or (B). Opinion below.
Judge: McKinney
Attorney for Appellant: Peter Sklarew
Attorneys for Debtors: Camden & Meridew, PC, Julie A. Camden
(7th Cir. Sept. 14, 2016)
(E.D. Ky. July 8, 2016)
The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s decision finding the debt dischargeable. The debtor sold a television to the plaintiffs, claiming it was a “high definition” television.The plaintiffs disputed that characterization and obtained a judgment in state court for the purchase price plus punitive damages. However, the court finds that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proof in showing the requisite elements of § 523(a)(2)(A). Opinion below.
Judge: Schaaf