The Sixth Circuit affirms the 2015 consent order specifying the manner in which certain provisions of the confirmed Chapter 11 plan would apply to a class of claim holders. The Korean Claimants objected, arguing that the district court lacked authority to enter the consent order and that the consent order was an impermissible modification of the distribution agreement. The court holds that the court had the requisite authority to enter the consent order and it merely clarified the distribution agreement rather than modified it. Opinion below.
Judge: Kethledge
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 22, 2016)
The bankruptcy court grants the creditor’s motion to modify the stay to allow the creditor to proceed with the state court real property foreclosure action. The court finds that cause exists for stay relief for reasons including that this second bankruptcy filing by the debtor was pending for three months, the debtor’s plan depended on a sale of the property, the debtor had not taken any action to proceed with the sale, and there was no proof that the debtor’s spouse (co-owner of the property) would consent to the sale. Opinion below.
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 15, 2016)
(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
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Nov. 16, 2016)
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 11, 2016)
The bankruptcy court grants summary judgment in favor of the trustee in this declaratory judgment action, in which the plaintiff sought a judgment that certain health insurance proceeds were not property of the estate. The plaintiff argued that the debtor had assigned the proceeds to it prior to the bankruptcy, but the court holds that the evidence presented did not establish such assignment. The debtor’s spouse had signed the document for him, but the debtor’s spouse did not have the requisite agency authority to do so. Opinion below.
(6th Cir. B.A.P. Nov. 7, 2016)
(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
(6th Cir. Oct. 25, 2016)
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Oct. 28, 2016)
The bankruptcy court enters an order holding in abeyance the motion to dismiss the Chapter 13 case. The court also denies confirmation of the proposed plan but holds the case open for further filings. The required maintenance payment could not be satisfied by the monthly payments in the proposed plan. Opinion below.
Judge: Lloyd
Attorneys for Debtor: Naber & Joyner, J. Gregory Joyner
Attorney for Creditor: Joseph S. Elder II