FLNB Opinions Feed - Judge Mahoney Opinions

14-03015 | Garvin v. Diebolt

Mon, 15 Dec 2014 00:00:00 -0500

Order Denying Defendant's Motion for Leave to Request Jury Trial and Sustaining Plaintiff's Limited Objection to the Motion

Rules: 39(b), 38(a),

PDF

11-03031 | Imel et al v. EverHome Mortgage Company et al

Fri, 02 Sep 2011 00:00:00 -0400

Court denies Motion to Dismiss for willful violation of the discharge injunction. Court grants Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Codes: 524, 105, 157, 541,

PDF

06-03033 | Eglin Federal Credit Union v. Horlacher et al

Fri, 07 Mar 2008 00:00:00 -0500

Debtors filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy, but inadvertently omitted Creditor from their schedules. The Creditor was without notice of the bankruptcy filing until after the Debtors had received their discharge and the claims filing deadline had passed. Creditor brought an adversary case against the Debtors seeking its claim be declared nondischargeable. The Court found the claim to be nondischargeable pursuant to section 523(a)(3)(A) because Creditor had no notice or actual knowledge of the bankruptcy filing until after the passage of the bar date. The Debtors sought reconsideration of this ruling in light of the interplay of section 726(a)(2)(C) with 523(a)(3)(A). The Court granted reconsideration and declared the debt to be dischargeable. The Court determined that in a chapter 7 case, a creditor who has no knowledge of a bankruptcy case may file a claim anytime up until a distribution is made and still participate equally with other creditors. The Court held that in a chapter 7 case a claim that is tardily filed under section 726(a)(2)(C) is still timely under section 523(a)(3)(A) and is dischargeable.

Codes: 523(a)(3), 726(a)(2), 363(f), 363(m),

PDF

06-3030 | Morrissy v. Dereve et al

Mon, 04 Jun 2007 00:00:00 -0400

<p>"Badges of fraud" test compels a finding of fraudulent intent with regard to transfers and concealment.</p> <p>While certain omissions may have been due to oversight or inadvertence, the pattern of omissions and false statements warrants the conclusion that the statements and omissions were made with the requisite fraudulent intent.</p>

Codes: 727(a)(2), 727(a)(4),

PDF

05-03017 | Evans v. Codilis & Stawiarski, P.A. et al

Tue, 05 Sep 2006 00:00:00 -0400

Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings determining that the defendants did not violate the discharge injunction nor the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Rules: 7012(b),

PDF

05-03017 | Evans v. Codilis & Stawiarski, P.A. et al

Tue, 05 Sep 2006 00:00:00 -0400

05-3017 | Evans v. Codilis & Stawiarski, P.A. et al

Tue, 05 Sep 2006 00:00:00 -0400

05-3017 | Evans v. Codilis & Stawiarski, P.A. et al

Tue, 05 Sep 2006 00:00:00 -0400

05-3017 | Evans v. Codilis & Stawiarski, P.A. et al

Fri, 27 Jan 2006 00:00:00 -0500

The Debtor's motion for relief from order was deemed filed the day that he mistakenly filed such motion with the District Court rather than the Bankruptcy Court, and thus was timely. The filing of the motion suspended the notice of appeal he had previously filed until the motion was resolved. Upon the court's denial of the Debtor's motion, his previously filed notice of appeal ripened into an effective appeal and jurisdication vested in the District Court for adjudication of the appeal.

Rules: 8002, 9024, 9006,

PDF

05-3017 | Evans v. Codilis & Stawiarski, P.A. et al

Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:00:00 -0500

Order denying plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgement as a matter of law. A discharge under Chapter 7 eliminates the personal liability of mortgage debt but the debt is still enforceable against the home and the land. A discharge does not provide an exemption under the Florida homestead exemption.

Rules: 7056(c),

PDF

05-03012 | Han v. GE Capital Small Business Finance Corporation

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 00:00:00 -0400

Defendant/Creditor ordered to pay damages to the Debtor/Plaintiff resulting from a violation of the automatic stay, which consisted of the Defendant charging the Debtor postpetition, preconfirmation interest at the incorrect rate for the months of February 2001 through July 2001. The Court found no other violation of the automatic stay on the part of the Defendant. An accounting provided to the Debtor by the Defendant was not a violation of the stay as it was not an attempt to improperly collect a prepetition debt postpetition.

Codes: 362,

PDF

05-3007 | Sackett, as Personal Representative of the Estate v. Shahid

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 00:00:00 -0400

Debtor's discharge denied under 727(a)(3) due to his failure to maintain adequate financial records or prove any facts legally sufficient to justify such failure. Discharge was also denied under727(a)(4) because the pattern of omissions and false statements in the Debtor's schedules and statements warranted the conclusion that they were made with fraudulent intent. Discharge was also denied under 727(a)(5) as the Debtor could not satisfactorily explain what happened to $25,000 he borrowed from a bank.

Codes: 727,

PDF

05-03017 | Evans v. Codilis & Stawiarski, P.A. et al

Tue, 13 Sep 2005 00:00:00 -0400

Defendants' Motion to Dismiss denied, without prejudice, as untimely as it was not filed within 30 days after issuance of the summons as required by Rule 7012(a).

Rules: 7012,

PDF

03-03405 | James et al v. TIPLER

Mon, 12 Sep 2005 00:00:00 -0400

Debtor's discharge denied pursuant to 727(a) (3) and (4). Discharge not denied uner 727(a)(2) because plaintiffs did not prove that transfers to the Debtor's girlfriend were made with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud. However, the Debtor was unjustified in failing to keep adequate records under 727(a)(3), as he was an attorney with 25 years experience. Under 727(a)(4), the Court found that the Debtor made false oaths on material issues by failing to disclose gifts and transfers to and for the benefit of his girlfriend.

Codes: 727,

PDF

04-03010 | United States Trustee v. CORNELIUS

Mon, 12 Sep 2005 00:00:00 -0400

Debtor's discharge was denied under 727(a)(4) due to two false oaths that the court found to be material and knowingly false.

Codes: 727,

PDF

05-03012 | Han v. GE Capital Small Business Finance Corporation

Tue, 12 Jul 2005 00:00:00 -0400

Post-confirmation payments made outside of the Plan are not property of the estate. Any pre-confirmation payments tendered to the creditor pursuant to the Plan were not property of the estate either, since the payments, once made, belonged to the creditor and not to the estate or to the debtor. Thus, any misapplication of those payments was not a violation of the automatic stay as a matter of law. Further, a creditor's sending an appraiser to inspect collateral with no improper purpose and without an improper manner, and without any evidence that any steps were taken to harass, coerce, or collect from the debtor, is also not a violation of the stay. Finally, if the creditor charged a higher interest rate on the pre-confirmation payments than the promissory note authorized, then that could constitute a violation of the stay as an act to obtain possession of property of the estate. If the higher interest rates were charged on postconfirmation direct payments, there is no stay violation as the postconfirmati

Codes: 362,

Rules: 7056,

PDF

05-3006 | Sackett, as Personal Representative of the Estate v. Shahid et al

Tue, 03 May 2005 00:00:00 -0400

Like a Rule 4004 extension for time to object to the discharge of a Debtor, a Rule 4003(b) extension of time to object to exemptions of a debtor obtained by the Trustee did not inure to the benefit of a creditor because of the "for cause" requirement to receive an extention. Therefore, the Court held that an order granting an extension applies only to the movant unless the terms of the extension convey a contrary intent. As the terms of the instant order did not convey such an intent, the Court granted the Debtors' motion to dismiss the creditor's Complaint objecting to the Debtors' exemptions.

Rules: 4003, 4004,

PDF

04-3007 | First National Bank Alaska v. SHELLEY et al

Thu, 28 Apr 2005 00:00:00 -0400

523(a)(2)(A) Summary judgment granted to the Debtor-husband where there was no evidence of fraudulent intent on his part, as there was no evidence that he entered into the contract with the plaintiff either intending to default or with the knowledge that he would not be able to fulfill his promises. Summary judgment also granted as to the Debtor-wife as the Plaintiff failed to produce any evidence that she was involved in any of the alleged fraudulent conduct at issue. 523(a)(2)(B) The Court found that the forbearance agreement that was the basis of this claim was not a financial statement as contemplated by this section, and therefore granted summary judgment in favor of the Debtors.

PDF

05-3003 | Parker v. Livingston et al

Mon, 11 Apr 2005 00:00:00 -0400

The Plaintiff/Debtor was attempting to void the Defendant's judgments, declare the judgments unsecured debts discharged in the bankruptcy, or have the debts disallowed. The Court concluded that it did not have arising under, arising in, or related to jurisdiction in this case, and dismissed the case based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The property at issue was non-estate property that did not affect the estate, and any claims or defenses of the Debtor against the Defendant could properly be asserted only in state court or federal court on nonbankruptcy grounds.

Codes: 1334,

PDF