Skip to main content

Page Banner(Taxonomy)

judge williams

Shortsleeve v. Centurytel of Ala. LLC (In re Shortsleeve)

Ruling
Debtor's cause of action under Fair Debt Collection Practices Act was not related to bankruptcy.
Procedural posture

Plaintiff debtor sued defendants, a creditor and a debt collector, asserting claims for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., and under 11 U.S.C. § 524 for violation of the discharge injunction. Defendants moved to dismiss the FDCPA claims per Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of jurisdiction and to dismiss the 11 U.S.C. § 524 claims per Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Shortsleeve v. Centurytel of Ala. LLC (In re Shortsleeve) Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

opinion summary, case decided on September 06, 2006 , LexisNexis #1006-065

In re Mims

Ruling
Confirmation denied and case dismissed where plan failed best interest of creditors test.
Procedural posture

Trustee filed an objection to confirmation of debtors'plan and asserted that debtors, a husband and wife, did not meet the best interest of creditors test set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(4). The objection came on for hearing after which the parties submitted briefs on the issues of law raised by the objection.

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

opinion summary, case decided on August 24, 2006 , LexisNexis #1006-080

In re Piknik Prods. Co.

Ruling
Debtor's attorneys fees could be paid from cash earned in operation of debtor's business within budget approved by creditor on pro rate basis with other administrative claimants.
Procedural posture

The attorneys for a bankruptcy debtor applied for approval of compensation and reimbursement of expenses. The committee of unsecured creditors objected to payment of any fee that would have resulted in priority above other administrative expenses.

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

opinion summary, case decided on August 09, 2006 , LexisNexis #0906-014

In re Morgan

Ruling
Prepetition foreclosure sale terminated debtor's rights in property even though deed was filed postpetition.
Procedural posture

A creditor filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay to permit it to proceed with ejectment proceedings against a chapter 13 debtor.

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

opinion summary, case decided on August 09, 2006 , LexisNexis #1006-002

In re Everett

Ruling
Reopening of no asset case to list dischargeable prepetition debt in schedules was not necessary.
Procedural posture

The debtors filed a motion to reopen their chapter 7 bankruptcy case, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 350, to amend the schedules.

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

opinion summary, case decided on August 08, 2006 , LexisNexis #1006-026

Lisenby v. J.A. Cambece Law Office P.C. (In re Lisenby)

Ruling
Debtor was entitled to punitive damages where law firm and collection agency willfully violated automatic stay.
Procedural posture

Plaintiff debtor filed a complaint against defendants, a law firm and a collection agency, for damages for violation of the automatic stay and violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The debtor moved for default judgment. The bankruptcy court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the sole issue of damages.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Lisenby v. J.A. Cambece Law Office P.C. (In re Lisenby) Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

opinion summary, case decided on March 27, 2006 , LexisNexis #0406-116