Judge Coachys

Leonard v. Halifax Fin. Group LP (In re Leonard)

Debtors sought summary judgment on their adversary complaint contending that defendant, the tax sale purchaser of property in which one of the debtors had an interest, should be enjoined from taking title at the end of the state law redemption period and that debtors should be permitted to redeem the property by paying the redemption amount through a plan pursuant to 11 U.S.C.S. § 1322(b)(2).
Ruling: 
Debtor entitled to redeem property sold at tax sale through chapter 13 plan.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Leonard v. Halifax Fin. Group LP (In re Leonard). Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Consumer case opionion summary, case decided on January 03,2013, LexisNexis #0113-129

In re Page

This matter came before the court on United States Department of Education's Motion for Summary Judgment against debtor on her complaint against the department under 11 U.S.C.S. § 523(a)(8).
Ruling: 
Consolidation loan was new postpetition debt that was not subject to discharge.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Page. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Consumer case opionion summary, case decided on November 29,2012, LexisNexis #1212-137

Golson-Dunlap v. Page (In re Page)

Chapter 7 trustee filed a complaint against defendant, the non-debtor wife of a debtor, seeking turnover of funds in a bank account as property of the estate under 11 U.S.C.S. § 541; seeking to avoid alleged transfers from the debtor to his wife pursuant to 11 U.S.C.S. §§ 544 and 548; and seeking to recover those transfers from the debtor's wife pursuant to 11 U.S.C.S. § 550. The debtor's wife moved for summary judgment.
Ruling: 
Payments by debtor to wife were not constructively fraudulent to extent made for reasonably equivalent value and used to pay creditors.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Golson-Dunlap v. Page (In re Page). Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Consumer case opionion summary, case decided on July 20,2012, LexisNexis #0812-089

In re ThreeStrands by Grace LLC

Before the court was an application to employ a law firm as debtor's counsel, effective nunc pro tunc to the filing date of the case, pursuant to 11 U.S.C.S. § 327 and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2014. The trustee filed an objection to the motion.
Ruling: 
Application to employ law firm as debtor's counsel nunc pro tunc on flat fee basis granted.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re ThreeStrands by Grace LLC. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Commercial case opionion summary, case decided on June 01,2012, LexisNexis #0612-107

In re Krause

The Chapter 7 debtor filed a motion under 11 U.S.C.S. § 522(f) to avoid a lien by a homeowners' association (HOA). The HOA objected.
Ruling: 
Consensual homeowners' association lien was not avoidable, even to extent ultimate judgment exceeded amount stated in original notice of lien.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Krause. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Consumer case opionion summary, case decided on October 20,2011, LexisNexis #1111-117

Batesly v. Wright (In re Wright)

A creditor sought a determination that his claims for false pretenses and embezzlement against debtors, a husband and wife, were nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C.S. §§ 523(a)(2)(A) and 523(a)(4). The husband debtor sought summary judgment, asserting that he was not a party to the transactions in question.
Ruling: 
Spouse's fraud could not be imputed to debtor to render related debt nondischargeable.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Batesly v. Wright (In re Wright). Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Consumer case opionion summary, case decided on May 27,2011, LexisNexis #0711-044

In re Jocham

A bankruptcy trustee contended that a bankruptcy debtor was ineligible for Chapter 13 bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C.S. § 109(e) because the debtor had non-contingent and liquidated secured debt which exceeded the debt limit for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The trustee moved to dismiss the debtor's case, and the debtor objected to dismissal.
Ruling: 
Case ordered converted to chapter 7 or dismissed due to non-contingent and liquidated secured debt in excess of chapter 13 limits.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Jocham. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Consumer case opionion summary, case decided on May 26,2011, LexisNexis #0611-106

In re Nance

This matter came before the court on the Chapter 13 Trustee's Amended Objection to Confirmation of Debtors' Amended Plan.
Ruling: 
Unemployment compensation required to be included in current monthly income calculation.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Nance. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Consumer case opionion summary, case decided on May 21,2010, LexisNexis #0810-106

Woods v. Roberts (In re Roberts)

Creditor, a police officer who had been working as an off-duty private security guard, asserted that her claim against the chapter 13 debtor for battery was nondischargeable, pursuant to 11 U.S.C.S. § 1328(a)(4). The creditor moved for summary judgment.
Ruling: 
Personal injury claim resulting from debtor's willful battery of creditor security guard was nondischargeable.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Woods v. Roberts (In re Roberts). Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Consumer case opionion summary, case decided on January 26,2010, LexisNexis #0310-101

In re Petitt

The chapter 7 trustee sought an order requiring debtors, a married couple, to turn over the proceeds of a check paid to the husband under a plant closure agreement affecting his employment pursuant to which he promised to provide services until the plant actually closed in exchange for a bonus. At issue was whether the bonus was estate property per 11 U.S.C.S. § 541 or exempt per 11 U.S.C.S. § 522(b)(2) and Ind. Code § 24-4.5-5-105.
Ruling: 
Severance bonus was property of the estate and not exempt.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Petitt. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Consumer case opionion summary, case decided on April 14,2009, LexisNexis #0609-085

Pages

Subscribe to Judge Coachys