Source: http://www.txs.uscourts.gov/bankruptcy/judges/jb/opinions/chapter7.htm
Timestamp: 2015-01-30 18:31:22
Document Index: 457208219

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 52', 'art 2', '§ 522', '§ 522', '§ 548', '§ 523', '§ 523', '§ 547', '§ 554', '§ 521', '§ 523', '§ 330', '§ 506', '§ 523', '§ 523', '§ 727', '§ 362', '§ 362', '§ 362', '§ 542', '§ 523', '§ 105', '§ 547', '§ 547', '§ 547', '§ 547']

Judge Bohm Chapter 7 Opinions and Orders
Case Title: In re Walker
Case #: 03-47645
Description: Judicial estoppel barred reopening the chapter 7 case.
Case Title: In re Watson
Case #: 04-03924
Description: Debtor-beneficiary's interest in a trust was held to be property of Chapter 7 estate.
Case #: 02-33174
Description: Sanctions imposed against attorney for violating judgment entered in state disciplinary proceeding, as well as local rules and state disciplinary rules.
Case #: 04-03862
Description: Debtor's discharge denied pursuant to Section 727(a)(4)(A) for making false statements under oath in original bankruptcy schedules.
Smith v. Lounsbury (In re Amberjack Interests, Inc.) Case #: 03-03543
Description: Order construing contingency fee agreement of special litigation counsel employed by trustee, denying enhanced fees requested by special counsel pursuant to Sections 328 and 330, and awarding exemplary damages to the trustee under Texas law based on evidence of principals' malice. Date: 07/13/05
Case #: 05-03032
Description: Debtor's discharge denied pursuant to Sections 727(a)(2)(A) and 727(a)(3) for improperly transferring funds in excess of $22,000 from the sale of his exempt homestead and failing to substantiate how he spent over $50,000 in proceeds from the sale of his residence in the months immediately preceding his bankruptcy filing. Date: 08/25/05
Calvin v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In re Calvin) Case #: 05-35925
Description: Debtors' motion to hold financial institution in civil contempt and for damages for alleged violation of the automatic stay was denied.
Case Title: In re Zuniga
Case #: 05-33416
Description: The Chapter 7 trustee filed a motion to show cause. The Court held that a credit counseling firm, a California law firm, and an attorney hired as the Debtor's local counsel (either collectively or individually) violated the Bankruptcy Code, local rules for the Southern District of Texas, local bankruptcy rules, and state disciplinary rules by: failing to adequately disclose compensation, sending out an improper mailing list, practicing law in the Southern District of Texas without being admitted to practice in the district, engaging in the unauthorized practice of law, not keeping the debtor reasonably informed about the status of the case, receiving unreasonable fees, not being candid with the Court, and making false or misleading communications about their services. Sanctions were imposed. Date: 02/12/07
Case Title: Hallmark Capital Group, LLC v. Pickett (In re Pickett) Case #: 01-37177
Description: The Court concluded that it did have jurisdiction to determine the validity and extent of a lien on the Debtor's exempt homestead property, but nevertheless concluded that it should abstain from adjudicating the lawsuit. Date: 04/11/06
Case #: 05-03332
Description: In cross-motions for Partial Summary Judgment, the parties requested the Court adjudicate whether certain transfers of letter of credit proceeds made by the Debtor to its four creditors constituted avoidable preferences under Section 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. Date: 04/18/06
Case Title: In re Anderson
Case #: 05-48350
Description: The Court denied the Debtor's motion to void a judicial lien on her home because: (1) the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precluded the Court from exercising jurisdiction; (2) the doctrine of res judicata barred the Debtor from relitigating the ownership interest in the property; and (3) the Debtor could not use Section 522(f) of the Bankruptcy Code to void the interest held by the respondent in the property. Date: 05/10/06
Case #: 04-03618
Description: The Court denied the Debtor/Defendant's pro se motion to enlarge the time to file a notice of appeal because: (1) under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002, the motion was not timely filed; and (2) alternatively, even if the motion was timely filed, the Debtor/Defendant failed to demonstrate excusable neglect as required under Rule 8002(c)(2) to warrant an enlargement of time for her to file a notice of appeal of the judgment. Date: 06/14/06
Case #: 06-03197
Description: The Court issued its report and recommendation to the United States District Court regarding the defendant's motion to withdraw the reference. The Court determined that the Holland America factors weighed in favor of withdrawal of the reference. Date: 06/30/06
Askanase v. Lawley (In re Lawley) Case #: 05-03296
Description: The Court denied the Debtor's timely filed motion for rehearing because the Debtor: (1) presented no new evidence; (2) lacked the authority to reinstate the corporate charter (which would serve as new evidence supporting grounds for a new trial); (3) would deprive the bankruptcy estate of assets if allowed to reinstate the charter; and (4) cannot disturb the order denying discharge even if the corporate charter were reinstated. Date: 08/07/06
Case #: 05-91224
Description: The Court held that the Debtor's after-tax contributions to an ERISA-qualified savings plan are excluded from the bankruptcy estate. Date: 09/19/06
Case #: 06-03338
Description: The Court concluded that the Debtor's motion to dismiss should be granted because the plaintiff failed to present any evidence justifying its delay or the mistakes in its original complaint; and the Court concluded that the amended complaint did not relate back to the original complaint because the facts described in the original compliant arose out of a separate transaction or occurrence. Date: 10/13/06
Case #: 05-39982
Description: The Court concluded that the Debtor (a practicing attorney) abused the bankruptcy process by: (1) filing the pending case in violation of Judge Isgur's order dismissing the Debtor's first bankruptcy with prejudice; and (2) failing to file full and complete schedules, statements, and creditors' matrices and failing to schedule his debts in violation of the Bankruptcy Code and Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. The Court also concluded that the Debtor filed his bankruptcy petition in bad faith. The Court sanctioned the Debtor in the form of attorneys' fees awarded to his creditors (as an addition to sanctions previously imposed). Date: 10/19/06
Case #: 06-30339
Description: The Court held that the mere act of declaring an intent to surrender collateral on a Statement of Intention does not extinguish the Debtors' right to deduct those payments under Section 707(b)(2)(A)(iii) of the Bankruptcy Code. However, for purposes of a motion to dismiss based on the presumption of abuse formula found in Section 707(b)(2)(A), the relevant date on which calculations should be based is the date of the filing of the motion, not the date of the filing of the petition. Therefore, any events occurring post-petition and up to the date of the filing of the motion must be taken into account in applying the means test. If a debtor has carried through with his intent to surrender the collateral and relief from stay has been granted before the filing of the presumption of abuse motion, the payments on that debt would not be counted under Section 707(b)(2)(A)(iii). Date: 10/30/06
Case #: 06-03320
Description: The Court denied in part and granted in part the Debtor's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's first amended complaint objecting to discharge pursuant to Sections 523 and 727 of the Bankruptcy Code. Date: 12/15/06
Case Title: In re Presto
Case #: 06-33618
Description: The Court held that if a motion to compel discovery fails to contain a certification required by Rule 37(a)(2)(A), the motion should be denied.
Case #: 06-03324
Description: The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint, and denied in part and granted in part the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, evaluating the plaintiffs' claims under Section 523(a)(2)(A) and Section 523(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code.
Case #: 01-34884
Description: The Court granted the Trustee's motion for sanctions against the debtor and her attorney.
Case #: 06-03472
Description: The Court denied the defendants' motion to withdraw deemed admissions, holding that the defendants failed to establish excusable neglect under Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b)(1). Date: 03/14/07
Case #: 06-03695
Description: The Court determined that the defendant had not waived her right to a jury trial by filing a counterclaim against, and seeking attorney's fees from, the bankruptcy estate. The Court found that the particular facts of the adversary proceeding and the defendant's specific counterclaims did not involve the process of allowance and disallowance of claims, nor did they invoke the equitable power of the bankruptcy court to adjust the debtor-creditor relationship. Thus, the Court made this Report and Recommendation, pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 5011, in favor of withdrawing the reference so that the District Court may conduct a jury trial. Date: 04/03/07
Case Title: In re Jarboe
Case #: 06-36313
Description: The Court held an inherited IRA was not exempt from the bankruptcy estate pursuant to Tex. Prop. Code § 52.0021(a) because it was sufficiently different from an IRA as the debtor could not roll over the IRA into another account, could not make any contributions to the IRA, and could remove funds from the IRA at any time, for any reason, and without penalty. Date: 05/11/07
Case #: 06-31917
Description: The Court held that the debtor got rid of his stock with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor. In concluding that, this Court found that 11 badges of fraud existed. Date: 10/05/07
In re Presto Part 2
Description: The Court sustained an objection to a homestead exemption under 11 U.S.C. § 522(q), (o) and (p) because: (1) the debtor used sale proceeds to make improvements to his house within ten years of the bankruptcy filing (and failed to disclose it); (2) the debtor acquired the ex-wife's community property interest, which was not protected by the terms of § 522(p); and (3) the the debtor intentionally concealed a tax refund by failing to give his ex-wife half.
Case #: 06-35827
Description: The Court concluded that a debtor is not entitled to claim a vehicle ownership expense when determining monthly deposable income when the debtor owns a car free and clear of any liens. Date: 12/17/07
Case Title: H.D. Smith Wholesale Drug Co. v. McCombs (In re McCombs)
Case #: Adv. No. 07-3043 Description: The Court held that when an allegedly partitioned homestead lacked the substantive requirement of an intent to partition and failed as a gift of community property (because the debtor expressed no present intention to make a gift and did not deliver the deed), the party arguing for partition will not have a claim to a homestead exemption separate and distinct from the debtor. Date: 12/21/07
Case #: Adv. No. 06-3540 Description: The Court held that the debtors' transfers of funds to the issuer to purchase an annuity on the eve of their bankruptcy filing pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 548.
Case #: Adv. No. 06-3320 Description: The Court held that denial of discharge was supported based upon the fraudulent intent relating to the debtor's transfer of property and the debtor's failure to explain the loss of collateral that had been pledged toward a loan. Date: 05/23/08
Case #: Adv. No. 07-03380 Description: The Court held that the lessor could not prevail pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) because it was unable to prove that the debtor knew that his representations were false at time time of the lease signing, nor that the debtor made representations with the intent to deceive. The lessor also failed to satisfy the requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) because the debtor did not intend to deprive the lessor of its property. Date: 07/10/08
Case Title: West v. Seiffert (In re Houston Drywall, Inc.)
Case #: Adv. No. 06-03415 Description: The Court concluded that transfers the debtor made to its president and partnership were avoidable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 547(b). Date: 08/07/08
Case Title: In re Solly
Case #: 08-31574
Description: The Court held that a debtor may not claim the full amount of an $11,200 malpractice claim and then subsequently list the value of that claim as "unknown." Date: 08/26/08
Case Title: Floyd v. Fischer (In re Pearson)
Case #: Adv. No. 99-3484 Description: The Court denied a chapter 7 trustee's motion to compel compliance with an agreed final judgment. The Court denied the motion to compel because the agreed judgment was ambiguous, using incorrect language and containing inconsistencies, and improperly defined terms. Date: 06/26/09
Case Title: In re Red River Energy, Inc.
Case #: 08-36021
Description: The Court allowed the appointment of a shareholder as the representative of the debtor instead of appointing the debtor's former Chief Restructuring officer because Bankruptcy Rule 9001 allows for the appointment of a controlling shareholder, and the shareholder had ties to the debtor at the time of filing (while also more knowledgeable than the Chief Restructuring Officer about matters pertaining to the bankruptcy). Date: 08/11/09
Case #: 09-30872
Description: The Court held that where a creditor had a sufficient remedy in requesting a state court to appoint a receiver, it was improper to consider abandonment of the general partner's interest by the bankruptcy trustee pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 554(b). Date: 08/11/09
Case Title: In re Nutall
Case #: 09-32525
Description: The Court dismissed a creditor's pleading challenging discharge because it was filed after the sixty-day deadline promulgated in Bankruptcy Rule 4007(c). Moreover, the creditor incorrectly filed the pleading in the main case as a contested matter instead of a complaint initiating an adversary proceeding (as required by Bankruptcy Rules 7001(6) and 7003.
Case Title: West v. Hsu (In re Advanced Modular Power Sys., Inc.)
Case #: Adv. No. 08-3177
Description: The controlling shareholder of the debtor, as well as its principal, were liable for the value of the debtor's intangible assets. THese assets were used pre-petition by a newly formed corporation to continue the debtor's business. Therefore, the Court held that this use of the assets resulted in a breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, fraudulent transfer, and unauthorized postpetition transfers. Date: 09/22/09
Case Title: In re Royce Homes, LP
Case #: 09-32467
Description: A Chapter 7 debtor's designated representative has an affirmative duty to cooperate with the Chapter 7 trustee and turnover documents requested pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 521(a)(3) and Bankruptcy Rule 4002(a)(4), as the items requested were necessary for the trustee to perform his duties under the code. Date: 06/24/10
Case Title: Flood v. Kearney (In re Kearney)
Case #: Adv. No. 09-3398 Description: The Court held that debt owed to an ex-husband by an ex-wife was nondischargable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15), as it stemmed from the parties' divorce. Moreover, the Court concluded that collateral estoppel applied because the state court necessarily adjudicated whether the debt arose out of the parties' divorce. Date: 08/11/10
Case Title: Cage v. Garcia (In re Garcia)
Case #: Adv. No. 07-3157
Description: For 60(b)(1) or 60(b)(6) to provide relief from a judgment for a fraudulent transfer under Tex. Bus & Comm. Code 24.005, the motion must be brought within one year or within a reasonable time. Date: 08/17/10
Case Title: In re McCombs
Case #: 06-35891
Description: A trustee was due compensation pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 330 for selling a debtor's real property because the trustee had a good faith belief that a judgment creditor's lien was invalid and unsecured creditors would benefit as a result (with the sale also benefiting the estate). Date: 09/30/10
Case Title: In re Jack Kline Co.
Case #: 09-36569
Description: The Court held that an attorney needs to seek court approval under 11 U.S.C. § 506(b) in order to collect post-petition interest at the default rate and attorneys fees. Date: 11/04/10
Case Title: In re Lyons
Case #: 02-40161
Description: In denying the Chapter 7 trustee's application to employ special counsel, a counsel for the Chapter 7 trustee failed to show that he had tried to secure a more favorable rate of compensation than what was being offered by the proposed special counsel. Date: 03/23/05
Description: The Court denied the Debtor/Defendant's pro se motion to enlarge the time to file a notice of appeal because: (1) under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002, the motion was not timely filed; and (2) alternatively, even if the motion was timely filed, the Debtor/Defendant failed to demonstrate excusable neglect as required under Bankruptcy Rule 8002(c)(2) to warrant an enlargement of time for her to file a notice of appeal of the judgment. Date: 06/14/06
Case #: Adv. No. oy-03380 Description: The Court held that the lessor could not prevail pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) because it was unable to prove that the debtor knew that his representations were false at time time of the lease signing, nor that the debtor made representations with the intent to deceive. The lessor also failed to satisfy the requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) because the debtor did not intend to deprive the lessor of its property. Date: 07/10/08
Description: In denying the Chapter 7 trustee's application to employ special counsel, a counsel for the Chapter 7 trustee failed to show that he had tried to secure a more favorable rate of compensation than what was being offered by the proposed special counsel. Date: 09/28/12
Case Title: In re Henley Case #: 11-03453
Description: The Court denied the Debtors' discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2)(A), (a)(3), (a)(4)(A), (a)(4)(D) and (a)(5). The Court also denied the Debtors' counterclaim under 11 U.S.C. § 362(k), which alleged that the Debtors' creditors violated the automatic stay by orchestrating the Debtors' arrests after they filed their Chapter 7 petition. The Court concluded that the creditors and their agents lacked notice of the actual bankruptcy filing, and therefore also lacked notice of the automatic stay. Further, the Court found that the Debtors' arrests and surrounding activity did not violate the plain language of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), as these activities fall under the exception in § 362(b)(1), which bars the automatic stay from affecting the commencement or continuation of a criminal action against the debtor.
Case Title: Porretto v. Nelson (In re Porretto)
Case #: 11-03226
Description: An agreed divorce decree between the Debtor and her ex-husband required the ex-husband to pay certain debts, and indemnify and hold harmless the Debtor for any failure to do so. The ex-husband did not pay and the creditors filed claims against the Debtor's bankruptcy estate. The Chapter 7 Trustee, on behalf of the estate, sought an order pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 542 requiring the ex-husband to turnover funds sufficient to satisfy the debts. The Court found that turnover, rather than a mere monetary judgment against the ex-husband, was appropriate. Further, as the ex-husband had acted inequitably in failing to fulfill his obligations under the divorce decree, he was not entitled to equitable relief.
Case Title: In re McDowell Case #: 12-31231
Description: The Court issued this Opinion to clarify the scope of the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine regarding handwritten notes and comments made by the Debtors and their counsel. The Debtors and their attorneys used these notes to complete the Debtors' bankruptcy petition, Schedules and Statement of Financial Affairs. The Court found that these notes may be privileged under either doctrine, but in the case of the attorney-client privilege, the assertor must show that: (1) the notes were made to a lawyer; (2) for the primary purpose of securing legal advice; and (3) with the intent to remain confidential. In the case of the work product doctrine, the assertor must show that: (1) there is a substantial need for the materials; and (2) that it is impossible to obtain this information, without undue hardship, by other means.
Case Title: In re Jackson Case #: 06-36268
Description: The chapter 7 Trustee sought the Court's approval, nunc pro tunc, to retain his own law firm, including two members thereof, to function as the attorney in charge and the advisor and litigator for intellectual property matters. The motion to approve the retention of counsel was denied in part without prejudice and denied in part with prejudice. The Trustee could file another application so long as he addressed all the factors discussed in the Court's opinion. The Trustee could not, however, seek nunc pro tunc approval as the deadline had passed, and his untimeliness was not excusable. Date: 12/20/12
Case Title: Woodward v. Ehrler-Nugent (In re Nugent) Case #: 11-03646
Description: The Debtor's former husband sought a declaration that the Debtor's obligations to him under the terms of a state court divorce judgment were non-dischargeable under 11 USC 523(a)(5) as a domestic support obligation. The Court found the husband failed to present sufficient evidence either from the language and form of the judgment, or from extrinsic evidence defined by the Nunnally factors, to demonstrate that the state court intended to classify the obligations as as a domestic support obligation. The obligations were more likely characterized as "property divisions," excepted from discharge only under a second provision, 11 USC § 523(a)(15)—which the husband failed to plead. Date: 01/10/13
Case Title: In re Stomberg
Case #: 10-41603
Description: The Court issued a Show Cause Order on the Debtor's attorney for filing the Debtor's Schedules and Statement of Financial Affairs (SOFA) without: (1) personally meeting with the Debtor; (2) reviewing these documents with the Debtor for accuracy; (3) obtaining the Debtor's signatures on these documents; or (4) obtaining the Debtor's permission to file these documents. The Debtor's attorney also forged the Debtor's signature on these documents using the symbol "/s/." As a result, the Court imposed sanctions on the Debtor's attorney under Bankruptcy Rule 9011(c) and 11 USC § 105(a). Date: 09/06/13
Case Title: In re 320Auto.com, LLC Case #: 13-33713-H4-7 Description: The Chapter 7 trustee filed an application to employ his own law firm to act as general counsel for the Chapter 7 estate and for the trustee's law partner to serve as lead counsel. The trustee was a "self-dealing fiduciary" and has the burden to demonstrate the fundamental fairness of every self-dealing transaction, including the request to employ his own law firm to act as general counsel for the estate. The Court denied the application without prejudice to refiling because the application failed to address certain issues required by this Court's opinion in In re Jackson, including the trustee's investigation to determine the availability of other qualified firms to handle the matters for which the trustee seeks counsel and to compare the hourly rates of the attorneys at those firms with the hourly rate of the trustee's law partner. Date: 11/22/13
Case Title: Sommers v. Comerica Bank, N.A. (In re Terrabon, Inc.) Case #: Adv. No. 13-03069 Description: The Court granted the Defendant's motion for summary judgment on the Chapter 7 trustee's claim seeking relief pursuant to Sections 506(d) and 551 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Chapter 7 trustee requested that the Court enter a judgment declaring the Defendant's security interest in a CD void and preserving the Defendant's security interest in the CD for the the benefit of the Debtor's bankruptcy estate. The Court writes this Memorandum Opinion to underscore how tenuous the corporate shield can be when one individual is CEO of both the parent and its subsidiary. Unfortunately, for the Chapter 7 trustee in this suit, this porous shield dooms his cause of action. Privately-held corporations and subsidiaries having the same person as CEO cannot play a "shell game" with assets that a bona fide lender, acting in good faith, has taken as collateral in exchange for extending financing. Date: 11/25/13
Case Title: Williams v. McKesson Corporation (In re Quality Infusion Care, Inc.) Case #: Adv. No. 13-3056
Description: The Chapter 7 trustee and the Defendant filed cross-motions for summary judgment pursuant to Section 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court issues this Memorandum Opinion for two reasons: (1) to emphasize to the practicing bankruptcy bar that in seeking to avoid and recover preferential payments, the element required to be satisfied under 11 U.S.C. § 547(b)(5) requires satisfying the so-called Application Aspect and Source Aspect when the defendant asserts that it is an undersecured creditor; and (2) to set forth this Court's disagreement with the Ninth Circuit's holding that to satisfy the implicit requirement of § 547(b)(5), which is typically referred to as the "diminution of the estate" test, the plaintiff must show that the alleged preferential transfer "diminishes directly or indirectly the funds to which creditors of the same class can legally resort for the payment of their debts, to such extent that it is impossible for other creditors of the same class to obtain as great a percentage as the favored one." Adams v. Anderson (In re Superior Stamp & Coin Co.), 223 F.3d 1004, 1007 (9th Cir. 2000). This Court concludes that the implicit requirement of § 547(b)(5) requires only that the plaintiff prove that the property which was transferred would have become "property of the estate" upon the filing of the bankruptcy petition if no transfer had occurred. The Court granted the trustee's motion as to the Defendant's "ordinary course of business" defense and denied the trustee's motion as to his preference claim because the trustee failed to establish that there is no genuine issue of material fact with respect to the fifth element of the preference claim, § 547(b)(5). The Court denied the Defendant's motion in its entirety.