Source: http://nmb.uscourts.gov/judges-info/opinions?field_opinion_date_value%5Bvalue%5D=&field_judge_nid=All&page=6
Timestamp: 2017-08-21 10:02:44
Document Index: 415116894

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 727', '§ 523', '§ 546', '§ 362', '§ 547', '§ 547']

Reconsideration, Standing 05/26/2016 Sandia Resorts, Inc.
The court granted Debtor’s motion to set aside the order dismissing Debtor’s Chapter 11 case consistent with Rule 59(e) and 60(b)(6) to prevent manifest injustice. The party who filed the motion to dismiss had transferred its interest in a loan before the filing of Debtor’s bankruptcy case, and was not acting as an agent of transferee, and, therefore, was not the real party in interest with constitutional standing to file the motion to dismiss.
Chapter 11, Due Process, Injunctions 05/23/2016 Cady Landrum v. Otero County Hospital Association
On cross motions for summary judgment, the Court determined that 1) the language in the Debtor-Hospital’s confirmed Chapter 11 plan was broad enough to enjoin claims against former employees of the Debtor-Hospital relating to claims against the Debtor-Hospital and has res judicata effect even if such third-party injunction is contrary to the requirements of the Bankruptcy Code; 2) that Plaintiff received actual notice of the commencement of the bankruptcy case, the hearing on confirmation of the Chapter 11 plan, and the deadline for filing administrative claims; and 3) fact issues concerning whether the content of the notice was sufficient to satisfy due process and bind plaintiff to the injunction contained in the Confirmed Chapter 11 plan precluded summary judgment.
Discharge, Dischargeability, Nondischargeability 05/19/2016 Ron G. Sustos and Bustos, LLC v. Jennifer Patricia Muller
Creditor filed an adversary proceeding to have Debtor's discharge denied under §§ 727(a)(3), (a)(4), and (a)(6), and the debt owed to him be declared nondischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A). After a trial on the merits, the Court ruled against the Creditor on all claims.
Limitation of Actions, Summary Judgment 05/02/2016 Philip J. Montoya v. Gary Edward Sasso, et al.
The Court denied summary judgment on the Trustee’s preference and fraudulent transfer claims to recover a vehicle as an asset of the bankruptcy estate. Fact issues existed concerning whether the limitations period under § 546(a) could be extended under the doctrine of equitable tolling, which has a fraud component generally requiring active deception that lulls the plaintiff into inaction, and a diligence component measured by an objective standard. The Court granted Trustee’s request under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(g) to treat facts not subject to genuine dispute as established in the adversary proceeding.
Automatic Stay, Cause, Relief from Stay 04/29/2016 SPOVERLOOK, LLC.
Creditor moved for relief from the automatic stay for cause under 11 USC § 362(d)(1), in order to pursue a motion to enforce a settlement agreement in state court proceedings. After applying the Curtisfactors, the Court decided that the motion should be denied, and reasoned that the Debtor should be allowed to attempt to reject the settlement agreement as an executory contract.
Summary Judgment 04/14/2016 Philip Montoya, Trustee v. Gary Sasso et al
Fact issues concerning the character of property acquired pre-petition by debtor’s non-filing spouse precluded summary judgment on Trustee’s claim for declaratory judgment determining that the property is an asset of the bankruptcy estate. Court granted Trustee’s request under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(g) to treat facts not subject to genuine dispute as established in the adversary proceeding.
Avoidance Actions, Fraudulent Transfers, Preference, Summary Judgment 04/14/2016 Mazel v. Varela
The Court denied the Trustee’s motion for partial summary judgment on claims to recover preferential and fraudulent transfers due to the following deficiencies: 1) the facts not subject to genuine dispute failed to establish the debtor’s insolvency at the time of the transfers – Trustee could rely on the presumption of insolvency only as to those transfers made within 90 days of the petition date and only with respect to the Trustee’s preferential transfer claims under § 547; 2) a lack of evidence of the value of the transferred property and the amount of creditor’s claim prevented the Court from determining whether the Trustee satisfied § 547(b)(5)’s hypothetical liquidation element for preferential transfers; 3) fact issues concerning reasonably equivalent value precluded judgment on the Trustee’s constructive fraud claims; and 4) circumstantial evidence of actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud was not so overwhelming as to warrant summary judgment – such claims involving issues of intent and credibility are less susceptible to summary judgment.