Source: http://nmb.uscourts.gov/judges-info/opinions?field_opinion_date_value%5bvalue%5d=&field_judge_nid=All&page=1&order=field_category&sort=desc
Timestamp: 2016-07-28 06:43:59
Document Index: 161171633

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 523', '§ 523', '§ 523', '§ 706', '§329', '§ 327', '§ 521', '§ 521', '§ 521']

Keywords/Topic Date Title Description Judge Collateral Estoppel, Damages, Dischargeability, Nondischargeability 04/14/2016 H. Steven Murphy et al v. David A. Spencer Plaintiffs sought summary judgment that their debt was nondischargeable based on a prepetition state court judgment. The Court previously determined the judgment established liability under Section 523(a)(2)(A) (actual fraud) and 523(a)(6) (willful and malicious injury). The only remaining issue was whether the entire amount of damages was also nondischargeable. The Court determined that all damages stemmed from defendant's fraud and/or willful and malicious conduct. The Court therefore entered a nondischargeable judgment for the entire amount of damages in the state court judgment.
Judge David T. Thuma Attorneys Fees, Dischargeability, Fees, Nondischargeability 04/12/2016 Ann Rippberger v. Bryan Lamey Debtor's ex-wife filed an adversary proceeding seeking a determination that a debt arising from the parties' premarital agreement was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15). The parties stipulated to nondischargeability but disagreed on the amount due, as the agreement was ambiguous. The Court applied New Mexico contract construction principles and analyzed the evidence presented at trial to determine the parties' intent. The Court denied Defendant's last minute request to abstain from liquidating the debt and Plaintiff's request for attorney fees in connection with her prosecution of the adversary proceeding.
Judge David T. Thuma Dischargeability 04/01/2016 Carl Fox v. Darla J. Kelly Court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff determining that the debt arising from two orders entered in the parties’ state court dissolution of marriage proceeding were non dischargeable under either 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) or 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15), but declined to quantify the amount of the non-dischargeable debt. Defendant provided some evidence that she had paid some of the amounts awarded to Plaintiff under the two orders. The state court can liquidate (and modify, if appropriate) the amount of the non-dischargeable debt arising from the two orders.
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz Chapter 13, Good Faith 03/31/2016 Ely Yao Debtor who had completed 54 of 58 payments under his confirmed Chapter 13 plan and then voluntarily converted from Chapter 13 to Chapter 7, sought to reconvert to Chapter 13 to complete the remaining payments under the confirmed Chapter 13 plan. The Chatper13 Trustee objected on grounds that conversion from Chapter 13 to Chapter 7 nullified the confirmed plan and that the Debtor had not demonstrated that he sought to reconvert in good faith. The Court held that conversion from Chapter 13 to Chapter 7 does not nullify, terminate, or vacate a confirmed Chapter 13 plan. Rather, the provisions of Chapter 13 making the plan binding simply no longer apply upon conversion to Chapter 7 and again become applicable upon reconversion to Chapter 13. The surrounding facts and circumstances satisfied the good faith analysis under the Marrama standard applicable to motions to convert under § 706. The Court granted the Debtor’s motion to reconvert for the purpose of completing the remaining payments under the original confirmed plan. The Court expressly did not decide whether reconversion is barred per se.
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz Chapter 11, Contract Interpretation 03/28/2016 Sunnyland Farms, Inc. Creditor asked Court to interpret ambiguous confirmed plan to allow him to receive stock rather than cash. Using applicable contract interpretation principles, the Court interpreted the plan to allow the creditor to receive stock.
Judge David T. Thuma Employment of Professionals 03/14/2016 Quick Cash, Inc. Any attorney who forms an attorney-client relationship with the debtor and who provides legal advice to the debtor is required to make the disclosures required by 11 U.S.C. §329, and the debtor must seek approval of such attorney’s employment under 11 U.S.C. § 327(a), even if the attorney is acting in a consulting capacity, had been retained by a third party, and does not intend to seek compensation for such services from the bankruptcy estate.
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz Discharge Injunction, Jurisdiction, Reconsideration, Standing 03/10/2016 Tammy Sprague, personal representative of the estate of Fred Dale Van Winkle v. Williams et al Defendants asked the Court to reconsider its order denying their motion to dismiss the adversary proceeding for lack of jurisdiction. Since the order was interlocutory, the Court reviewed it under a discretionary standard and declined to reconsider. The Court found that reopening the bankruptcy case was unnecessary since the adversary proceeding was filed while the main case was open. The Court also determined that the personal representative of the deceased debtor's estate had standing to assert a violation of the discharge injunction, and that the claim did not require a jury trial. stand
Judge David T. Thuma Attorneys Fees, Chapter 11, Fees, Professionals 03/03/2016 Steven Howard and Judy Pimentel UST objected to the final fee application of debtor's counsel, arguing that the fees were not reasonable because there was no way debtor could confirm a plan of reorganization. The Court sustained the objection in part, holding that the debtor had a chance to confirm a plan during much of the case, but that the debtor's second amended plan had no chance of being confirmed.
Judge David T. Thuma Chapter 13, Reconsideration, Statutory Construction 02/19/2016 Gloria L. Marcott Chapter 13 Debtor asked the Court to set aside dismissal order entered pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 521(i), prompted by Debtor’s failure to file a “Chapter 13 Statement of Current Monthly Income” within 45 days of the petition date. The Court concluded the Chapter 13 statement of current monthly income (commonly known as "Form B22") is not required by § 521(i). In Chapter 13 cases, that form is required by Bankruptcy Rule 1007. Because Debtor's failure to provide the statement of current monthly income should not have triggered "auto-dismissal" under § 521(i)(1), the Court vacated the dismissal order and reinstated the Chapter 13 case.
Judge David T. Thuma Relief from Stay 02/11/2016 Kadlubek Family Revocable Living Trust Creditor sought relief from stay under Section 362(d)(2) to continue a foreclosure action on a commercial property. The Creditor asserted that the Debtor lacked equity in the property and the property was not necessary to an effective reorganization. The Court found that although the Debtor lacked equity in the property, the property was necessary to an effective reorganization. The property was necessary in that it furthered the interests of the estate in the Chapter 11 plan of liquidation, and there was a reasonable possibility of a successful reorganization within a reasonable time.