(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Feb. 2, 2017)

The bankruptcy court makes additional findings of fact following the appeal and remand. The court’s original judgment stands, as the court concludes again that the plaintiff failed to prove that the debtor should have known of the fraud committed with his accounts. Opinion below

Prior opinion summary: click here

Judge: Carr

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Dec. 6, 2016)

(6th Cir. Oct. 12, 2016)

The Sixth Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s order denying the creditor’s motion to reopen the case. The debtor’s ex-spouse filed the motion four years after the debtor received his discharge. The ex-spouse argued that an obligation arising out of their divorce proceedings should be declared non-dischargeable. The court holds the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. Opinion below.

Per Curiam

Attorney for creditor: Aaron J. Scheinfield

The Seventh Circuit dismisses the appeal, holding that the bankruptcy court’s final order implementing the district court’s order directing turnover of assets to the bankruptcy estate was valid, because it resolved a core proceeding. The appellants contended that it was a non-core proceeding and thus required a district court order to be final. Opinion below.

Judge: Posner

Attorney for Appellants: Jordan Law P.C., Terrence M Jordan

(U.S. Sup. Ct. June 13, 2016)

The Supreme Court holds that Puerto Rico is a “State” for purposes of Chapter 9’s pre-emption provision, despite the Code’s definition of “State” excluding Puerto Rico for purposes of defining who may be a debtor under Chapter 9. Thus, Puerto Rico cannot authorize its municipalities to seek relief under Chapter 9 nor enact its own municipal bankruptcy laws. The district court properly enjoined enforcement of the laws enacted by Puerto Rico in 2014, which enabled its public utilities to modify their debts. Opinion below.

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Apr. 15, 2016)

The bankruptcy court dismisses the plaintiff’s complaint because it failed to state a claim. The complaint was based on a factual assertion that the plaintiff’s predecessor had an interest in certain bank account funds. However, the prior 11 U.S.C. § 363 sale order and confirmation order adjudicated otherwise. Thus, the claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorneys for Plaintiff: Philip G. Fairbanks, M. Austin Mehr, John M. Simms

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Mar. 18, 2016)

(S.D. Ind. Feb. 5, 2016)

The district court grants the unopposed motion to withdraw the reference and the motion to dismiss the adversary proceeding with prejudice. The court discusses the standard for withdrawal motions, and finds that the standard is met here. The claims arise out of a contractual relationship outside the bankruptcy and would not be resolved through the claims resolution process. Thus, the bankruptcy court could not issue a final judgment in the matter absent the movant’s consent. Opinion below.

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

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the Chapter 12 bankruptcy case. The court finds that the bankruptcy court failed to give the debtor proper notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the dismissal. However, the violation of due process was harmless error. The delay in filing a confirmable plan and continuing loss to the estate warranted the dismissal. Opinion below.

Judge: Preston

Attorney for Appellant: Heather McKeever

The Sixth Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s interpretation of the creditor’s settlement agreement with the debtor. The agreement provided that the creditor released his claims against the city and the individual officers. The plan only provided for a small percentage to be paid on the claim, but stated claims against individual officers were not discharged by the plan. The creditor argued the settlement agreement should not be held to have released claims against the individual officers, but the court finds the plain language of the agreement makes clear such claims were released.