(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Aug. 16, 2017)

(S.D. Ind. June 27, 2017)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Apr. 13, 2017)

Following trial, the bankruptcy court enters judgment against the debtor, finding the loan debt owed to the bank is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(B). The court finds that the debtor made false representations with respect to his ownership interest in real property and the existence of a debt owed, which representations were reasonably relied upon by the bank when making the loan. Opinion below.

Judge: Carr

Attorneys for Plaintiff: Riley Bennett & Egloff, LLP, Anthony R. Jost

Attorney for Defendant: KC Cohen

(S.D. Ind. Feb. 17, 2017)

The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s judgment in favor of the plaintiff trust. The bankruptcy court held that the trust could pierce the corporate veil and hold the debtor personally liable to the trust. The district court analyzes Indiana law on veil piercing and finds no error. Opinion below.

Judge: Young

Attorney for Debtor: Goering Law LLC, Wilmer E. Goering, II

Attorney for Plaintiff: Kroger Gardis & Regas LLP, David E. Wright

(7th Cir. Dec. 21, 2016)

The Seventh Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s judgment that certain real property of the debtor was exempt because it was held in a tenancy by the entirety under Illinois law. The creditor argued that the tenancy by the entirety was severed when the real property had been transferred to a trust prepetition. The Seventh Circuit examines applicable Illinois statutes and concludes that the transfer did not sever the tenancy by the entirety. Opinion below

Judge: Posner

Attorney for Debtor: Kofkin Law, Scott J. Kofkin

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 1, 2016)

The bankruptcy court grants the debtor’s motion for summary judgment in this 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) nondishargeability action. The plaintiff alleged the debtor willfully and maliciously injured the plaintiff, but failed to offer any evidence that would create a material factual dispute as to the debtor’s intent with respect to actions that gave rise to a prepetition judgment against the debtor. The court finds summary judgment in favor of the debtor is appropriate. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Sept. 14, 2016)

(7th Cir. June 23, 2016)

The Seventh Circuit reverses the bankruptcy court, concluding that the bankruptcy code permits modification of a confirmed Chapter 13 plan based on increased income post-confirmation. While the code does not expressly permit modification on this basis, other courts have permitted this. The trustee had filed a motion to increase the debtors’ plan payments based on an alleged $50,000 post-confirmation increase in the debtors’ annual income. Opinion below.

Judge: Adelman

Attorney for Debtor: Eugene Wedoff

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. May 9, 2016)

The bankruptcy court grants the trustee’s motion to dismiss the creditors’ adversary proceeding. The claims asserted by the creditors were property of the estate and thus the trustee has the exclusive right to assert the claims. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorneys for Trustee: Foley & Lardner LLP, Geoffrey S. Goodman, David B. Goroff

Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Akin Gump Strauss  Hauer & Feld LLP, Robert J. Boller, Douglas A. Rappaport, Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Casey M. Cantrell Swartz, W. Timothy Miller

(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