(Bankr. W.D. Ky. May 17, 2016)

(6th Cir. B.A.P. Mar. 28, 2016)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing the plaintiffs’ nondischargeability complaint. The plaintiffs had suffered a loss when they purchased a condominium unit and hired a builder to complete its construction. The builder accepted funds but failed to complete the work. Each of the plaintiffs’ claims under 11 U.S.C. § 523 were properly dismissed, principally because they failed to establish that the builder was the debtors’ agent. Opinion below.

Judge: Harrison

(6th Cir. B.A.P. Mar. 3, 2016)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Oct. 19, 2017)

A bankruptcy case in Illinois highlights the need for the amendments to Uniform Commercial Code Article 9 which will be effective in Indiana and many other states.

(6th Cir. B.A.P. June 28, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s entry of summary judgment, finding the debt owed to the plaintiff nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). The plaintiff had obtained a judgment against the debtors in state court on a conversion claim. The court holds that collateral estoppel applies and the elements of § 523(a)(6) were satisfied by the state court judgment. Opinion below.

Judge: Delk

Attorneys for Debtors: Schram, Behan & Behan, Michael R. Behan; Eiler Law Firm, Christian Michael Eiler

(6th Cir. B.A.P. April 17, 2017)

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Feb. 24, 2017)

The bankruptcy court denies the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this nondischargeability action under 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2), (4), and (6). The plaintiff argued that a state court judgment collaterally estopped the debtor from defending against the claims. The court holds that the findings in the state court judgment are insufficient to prevent the debtor from asserting a defense in this action. Opinion below.

Judge: Carr

Attorney for Plaintiff: Mulvey Law LLC, Joseph L. Mulvey

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Jan. 6, 2017)

The bankruptcy court overrules the creditor’s objection to confirmation of the Chapter 13 plan. The creditor argued its claim, secured by the debtors’ mobile home, should be increased by the cost of delivery and set-up of the home. The court holds that set-up and delivery costs may not be used as a means to increase the replacement value as a matter of law. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorney for Debtor: Daryle M. Ronning

Attorneys for Creditor: McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie & Kirkland, Zachary A. Horn

(6th Cir. B.A.P. Nov. 7, 2016)