Skip to main content

Page Banner(Taxonomy)

judge tallman

Alpine Bank v. Lakota Canyon Ranch Dev. LLC (In re Lakota Canyon Ranch Dev.)

Ruling
Relief from stay granted given lack of equity cushion, decline in property value and no probability of confirmable plan.
Procedural posture

A creditor filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C.S. § 362(d)(1) and (d)(2).

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Alpine Bank v. Lakota Canyon Ranch Dev. LLC (In re Lakota Canyon Ranch Dev.) Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Commercial opinion summary, case decided on January 25, 2012 , LexisNexis #0212-111

In re Shane Co.

Ruling
Lease rejection damages capped pursuant to §502(b)(6).
Procedural posture

Chapter 11 debtor filed an objection to a claim filed by a creditor, which sought lease rejection damages of over $6 million.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Shane Co. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Commercial opinion summary, case decided on January 04, 2012 , LexisNexis #0212-013

In re Loeffler

Ruling
Confirmation denied due to failure to adequately deal with possible avoidable transfer made on eve of filing date.
Procedural posture

Creditor bank filed an objection to chapter 13 debtor's second amended chapter 13 plan, and the court held a hearing on confirmation of that plan.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Loeffler Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on December 21, 2011 , LexisNexis #0212-067

In re Contino

Ruling
Presumption of Bad Faith.
Procedural posture

The chapter 7 debtors filed a motion for extension of the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C.S. § 362(c)(3). A mechanics lien creditor opposed the motion.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Contino Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on July 20, 2011 , LexisNexis #0911-110

In re Nicholson

Ruling
Debtors not entitled to discharge in converted chapter 7 case originally filed under chapter 13 within eight years of prior discharge.
Procedural posture

Before the court was a bankruptcy trustee's motion to deny the debtors a discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C.S. § 727(a)(8).

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Nicholson Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on May 10, 2011 , LexisNexis #0611-096

In re Moore

Ruling
Confirmation denied due to insufficient commitment of projected disposable income to plan.
Procedural posture

This case came before the court for confirmation of debtor's Third Amended Chapter 13 Plan (TAP). Following an evidentiary hearing, the court took the matter under advisement. The trustee objected to confirmation.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Moore Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on January 26, 2011 , LexisNexis #0211-100

Archangel Diamond Corp. v. OAO Lukoil (In re Archangel Diamond Corp.)

Ruling
Discretionary abstention exercised with regard to debtor's RICO action against Russian company.
Procedural posture

Debtor, a Canadian company, filed an action in the Denver District Court (Colorado) in 2001, alleging, inter alia, that defendant, a Russian company, breached a contract the parties entered for the purpose of mining diamonds. The case was moved to federal district court and referred to the bankruptcy court after the debtor was forced into bankruptcy, and the Russian company filed a motion for abstention and remand to the state court.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Archangel Diamond Corp. v. OAO Lukoil (In re Archangel Diamond Corp.) Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Commercial opinion summary, case decided on October 28, 2010 , LexisNexis #1210-032

In re King

Ruling
Above-median debtor with negative disposable income required to propose plan with 60- month commitment period.
Procedural posture

The chapter 13 debtors filed an amended plan. Their current monthly income was above the applicable median family income. The plan proposed a payment of $ 350 per month for 44 months, and the plan did not propose to pay all the unsecured creditors in full. The trustee filed an objection to plan, arguing that the debtors were required to propose a 60 month plan under 11 U.S.C.S. § 1325(b).

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re King Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on October 27, 2010 , LexisNexis #1210-099

In re Wilcox

Ruling
Modification of second mortgage that reflected prior agreement did not prevent confirmation of plan.
Procedural posture

Pending before the court was the debtor's second amended chapter 13 plan including valuation of collateral and classification of claims and the chapter 13 trustee's objection to confirmation of the plan pursuant to 11 U.S.C.S. § 1322(b)(2).

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Wilcox Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on September 07, 2010 , LexisNexis #1010-025

In re Olguin

Ruling
Social security benefits contributed to household by non-debtor grandparents needed to be included in calculation of current monthly income.
Procedural posture

Before the court was the Standing Chapter 13 Trustee's Objection to Confirmation of debtors' chapter 13 Plan.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Olguin Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on April 29, 2010 , LexisNexis #0810-036