FLNB Opinions Feed - Judge Specie Opinions

24-10230 | 700 Trust

Fri, 10 Jan 2025 00:00:00 -0500

The Order to Show Cause Why This Case Should Not Be Transferred to the Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida, or Dismissed was not satisfied. Venue was improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1408. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1412 and Bankruptcy Rule 1014(a)(2), the Court transfers the case to the Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties.

Rules: 1014,

PDF

LEXIS NEXIS

WESTLAW

24-10230 | 700 Trust

Fri, 27 Dec 2024 00:00:00 -0500

The Court gave full faith and credit to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland's ruling imposing an equitable servitude and prospective stay relief on the Naples property and related litigation. As the Maryland court's order precluded the automatic stay from applying to any bankruptcy case filed by an entity asserting an interest in the Naples property for four years, the automatic stay did not apply in this case filed by 700 Trust. The Court further reasoned that under 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(20) and (b)(4)(B), 700 Trust must move for relief from the prospective stay relief order and show changed circumstances or good cause to have the automatic stay imposed, which it failed to do. Given the principals' history of abusive bankruptcy filings and litigation tactics, the Court reserved jurisdiction to consider sanctions under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011 against the Debtor, its principals, and counsel for any improper filings.

Codes: 362(a), 362(d)(4), 362(b)(20), 105(a),

Rules: 9011,

PDF

LEXIS NEXIS

WESTLAW

21-50124 | SS&S Specialties, LLC

Thu, 15 Aug 2024 00:00:00 -0400

The Court denied Claimant's Motion for Relief from Discharge Injunction and/or Order Discharging Debts. The Claimant alleged to be an employee of Debtor who suffered a post-petition on-the-job injury and was therefore entitled to an administrative expense claim under Section 503. The Claimant's alleged injury occurred between the Petition date and Confirmation. Claimant was noticed of the bankruptcy case four months before the Plan was confirmed, yet took no action in the bankruptcy case until ten months after the Plan was confirmed by the Court.

Codes: 1141(d)(1), 101(10), 1191(a), 1144, 503,

Rules: 9006,

PDF

LEXIS NEXIS

WESTLAW

23-40330 | Keane M. Rogers

Mon, 01 Jul 2024 00:00:00 -0400

The Court denied Chapter 7 Trustee's Second Amended Motion to Approve the Sale Real and Personal Property Free and Clear of Liens, Claims, Encumbrances, and Interests Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 363(b), (f)(3), and (m). The assets the Trustee sought to sell were not Section 541(a) property of the estate; the assets were owned by separate legal entities, of which Debtor was a shareholder/member. The creditors of the separate entities were not given adequate notice of the proposed sale. Additionally, the sale would not have produced a meaningful distribution to the unsecured creditors of the bankruptcy estate.

Codes: 363(b), 363(f), 363(m), 541, 326(a),

Rules: 6004(a), 7001(2),

PDF

LEXIS NEXIS

WESTLAW

23-30572 | Bluewater Wellness Group LLC

Mon, 08 Apr 2024 00:00:00 -0400

The Court denied creditor's Motion to Allow Filing of Proof of Claim After Bar Date. In this Chapter 7 case, the Court held that the creditor was not entitled to file a proof of claim after the bar date because the debtor properly listed the creditor's correct home address on the schedules and mailing matrix, the notice was mailed to that address, and nothing in the creditor's denial of receipt of the notice was sufficient to overcome the presumption that she actually received the notice; nothing filed by the debtor in the case qualified as an informal proof of claim that could be amended.

Rules: 3002, 9006(b), 3002(c),

PDF

LEXIS NEXIS

WESTLAW

23-03007 | Goodman v. Adair

Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:00:00 -0400

The Court granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim upon Which Relief Can Be Granted. The Court held that 1) denial of Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to object to Defendant's discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727 was properly denied because Plaintiff cited excusable neglect due to a lightning strike, which was inadequate for an extension; 2) the first amended complaint failed to state a cause of action under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) because Plaintiff alleged no facts that could support a conclusion that  the debt was obtained by false pretenses, a false representation or actual fraud; and 3) Plaintiff's first amended complaint was not sufficient to put defendant on notice of any Section 727 claim because it mentioned neither denial of discharge nor Section 727.

Codes: 727, 523(a)(2),

Rules: 4004, 7008,

PDF

LEXIS NEXIS

WESTLAW

23-01002 | Redstone Advance, Inc. v. Big Daddy Guns, Inc et al

Tue, 06 Jun 2023 00:00:00 -0400

Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and Abstain. State court action for foreclosure and replevin, based on a Merchant Cash Agreement,  was removed to bankruptcy court by the Debtors/Defendants. Subject matter jurisdiction exists over this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b), and this is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (B), (K), and (O).  Mandatory abstention under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2) is not applicable because the issues cannot be timely adjudicated in state court, and because diversity jurisdiction may exist. Discretionary abstention under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1) and equitable remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b) are inappropriate because this Court is best suited to sort out who owns the seized inventory, and which creditor(s), if any, hold valid, perfected security interests and in what priority.

PDF

21-04003 | Nystrand v. Kingdom of Sweden

Mon, 29 Aug 2022 00:00:00 -0400

The Court granted Kingdom of Sweden's Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment. In an adversary proceeding, in which plaintiff sought a hardship discharge of the student loan debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8), defendant's motion for summary judgment was properly granted as plaintiff did not make good faith efforts to repay the loan, and plaintiff failed to excuse her failure to make any payments to defendant by claiming that defendant never contacted her about repayment options, rather than vice versa.

Codes: 523(a)(8),

PDF

LEXIS NEXIS

WESTLAW

19-03012 | Galvin v. U. S. Bank National Association, as Trustee under

Thu, 11 Aug 2022 00:00:00 -0400

The Court dismissed the pro se Plaintiff's seventh amended complaint 1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker Feldman doctrine because the Plaintiff was seeking to undo a state court foreclosure judgment; 2) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the complaint did not state core or related to causes of action; 3) because Debtor's underlying chapter 7 bankruptcy case was closed and fully administered; 4) the plaintiff failed to state a justiciable claim under Sect. 506 of the Bankruptcy Code; 5) the seventh amended complaint contained shotgun pleading; and 6) the seventh amended complaint violated Rule 8(a). The Court noted at the outset that the seventh amended complaint was filed without leave to amend pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2) and the Court's prior order.

Codes: 506,

Rules: 8(a), 15(a)(2),

PDF

22-04003 | Marshall Glade, Liquidating Trustee of the Campbel v. Carbonell et al

Fri, 29 Jul 2022 00:00:00 -0400

The Court granted Defendants’ Motions to Remand Adversary Proceedings. The Court held that creditors were entitled to remand of their state court proceedings because the Liquidating Trustee's removal under  28 U.S.C. § 1452(a) was untimely pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. R. 9027, and the expanded removal time under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) was inapplicable as the Liquidating Trustee could only remove the proceedings supplementary under § 1452, and he had no basis for removal under § 1441.

PDF

LEXIS NEXIS

WESTLAW

22-04004 | Marshall Glade, Liquidating Trustee of the Campbel v. Empower H.I.S., LLC et al

Fri, 29 Jul 2022 00:00:00 -0400

22-03005 | Colon v. Divine Mercy Farms, LLC et al

Thu, 23 Jun 2022 00:00:00 -0400

The Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss the adversary proceeding, or in the alternative, for summary judgment. The Court declined to consider the exhibits attached to the motion and reviewed the motion under FRCP 12(b)(6). The Court found that the factual allegations contained in the complaint stated a plausible claim under Fla. Stat. Sect. 605.0702(1)(b)(5). At this stage of litigation, the question is not what Plaintiff could prove, but whether Plaintiff has adequately alleged each element of a plausible claim.

Rules: 12(b)(6), 7052,

PDF

21-04019 | Rooks, Jr. v. St. Matthew's University (Cayman) Ltd. et al

Fri, 10 Jun 2022 00:00:00 -0400

The Court granted Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, holding that 1) Plaintiff lacked standing to pursue all claims unrelated to Sect. 523; 2) the Complaint was rife with shotgun pleading; and 3) the Complaint fails to state a claim under Sect. 523(a)(8).

Codes: 523(a)(8), 554,

Rules: 7008, 7012, 12(b)(6),

PDF

19-40279 | General Capacitor, LLC

Fri, 25 Feb 2022 00:00:00 -0500

The Court denied creditor's motion for reconsideration of the order granting the motion to pay broker. In its motion, creditor argued that the broker's compensation is administrative expense under Sect. 502(b)(2) that should be paid along with the administrative claims of equal priority. Sect. 502(b)(2) only mentions compensation under Sect. 330(a), not Sect. 328. Because the broker's compensation was approved under Sect. 328, the Court determined that it is not subject to the provisions Sect. 503(b)(2).

Codes: 330, 328, 502(b)(2), 726(b), 507(a)(2),

Rules: 9024, 9023,

PDF

19-40279 | General Capacitor, LLC

Fri, 25 Feb 2022 00:00:00 -0500

21-30141 | Christopher Scott Sehman

Wed, 23 Feb 2022 00:00:00 -0500

The Court denied Creditor’s second relief motion and concluding that the Court’s prior ruling, In re Sehman, 632 B.R. 846, was legally correct. In its second relief motion, creditor argued that the Court made a fundamental error of law under FRCP 60(b)(1), arguing that 1) it did not willfully violate the automatic stay under Sect. 362(k)(1) because the district court’s Assignment Order was proof that Debtor had no interest in the Schweizer Lawsuit; and 2) even if there was a stay violation, the client-creditor should not be held accountable for the actions of the creditor-attorneys. The Court rejected these arguments, noting that based on the undisputed facts, the Court correctly determined that creditor’s actions were a willful violation of the automatic stay. The Court also noted that it is well established that clients are responsible for the actions of their attorneys, which includes willful violations of the automatic stay.

Codes: 362(k),

Rules: 60(b)(1), 9024,

PDF

LexisNexis Citation: 2022 Bankr. LEXIS 451

WestLaw Citation: 2022 WL 548000

19-40279 | General Capacitor, LLC

Thu, 20 Jan 2022 00:00:00 -0500

The Court granted, in part, the Chapter 7 Trustee’s motion to pay the Broker its commission fee. Two creditors’ primary objection to the motion to pay was that it was premature—the Trustee should not be authorized to pay the Broker now because its commission is an administrative expense which should be paid pro rata with the other administrative claims having the same priority. The Court disagreed, reasoning that since the Broker’s employment terms were approved under Sect. 328, and not Sect. 330, the Bankruptcy Code does not explicitly make compensation under Sect. 328 administrative expense claims. Another creditor objected, arguing that the Trustee’s calculation of the commission was incorrect in light of the Court’s prior ruling. The Court sustained that objection and overall ruled that the Trustee was authorized to pay the Broker’s commission in accordance with the terms of this Order.

Codes: 328, 330, 503(b), 507,

PDF

21-30141 | Christopher Scott Sehman

Tue, 11 Jan 2022 00:00:00 -0500

The Court denied a motion for relief from judgment, finding that it correctly concluded that a chose in action was § 541 property of the estate. In its motion for relief from judgment, Creditor asserted that the Court made a mistake of law under Rule 60(b)(1) when it concluded that Debtor's interest in a chose of action § 541 property of the estate because Creditor had been assigned that chose in action by a district court order (which has now been vacated). The Court found that because the assignment order had been vacated, all of Debtor's rights, title, and interests in the chose of action were restored as though no assignment had ever occurred. The Court also noted that even if the assignment order had not been vacated, that order was insufficient to divest Debtor of all interest in the chose of action.

Codes: 362(a),

Rules: 60(b), 9024,

PDF

LexisNexis Citation: 2022 Bankr. LEXIS 1384

WestLaw Citation: 2022 WL 1499110

20-05002 | Concrete Investments, Inc. v. Noble Public Adjusting, LLC

Thu, 06 Jan 2022 00:00:00 -0500

The Court denied Defendant's motion to dimiss because it found that the claims of the reorganized, Subchapter V debtor and in the adversary proceeding could conceivably affect the administration of Plaintiff's bankruptcy estate, so the Court had related to subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sect. 157(c)(1). The Court also found it unnecessary to abstain pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sect. 1334(c)(1) because the state court issues were not novel in nature, there were no issues of commity, and the Court's docket would not be burdened by the adversary proceeding remaining here, among other things. The Court reserved Defendant's claim that Plaintiff failed to state a cause of action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).

Codes: 157, 1334,

Rules: 12,

PDF

06-10085 | Robert B. Worobec

Fri, 22 Oct 2021 00:00:00 -0400

The Court denied Debtor's motion to reopen his Chapter 13 case, which was filed in 2006 and closed since October 2011. After discussing Debtor's lengthy abusive litigation history in this Court and in the Middle District of Florida, the Court concluded that Debtor presented a scintilla of cause to reopen this bankruptcy case pursuant to Sect. 350(b).

Codes: 157, 350(b),

PDF

20-05002 | Concrete Investments, Inc. v. Noble Public Adjusting, LLC

Wed, 29 Sep 2021 00:00:00 -0400

The Court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss because Plaintiff's complaint failed to state a cause of action under Sect. 542(a). In its ruling, the Court reasoned that since Plaintiff-Debtor's Chapter 11 plan had been confirmed, there was no longer an estate, so a Sect. 542 action is no longer available. Additionally, the Court noted that because there was no longer an estate, it no longer had subject-matter jurisdiction.

Codes: 542, 1334,

Rules: 7012(b), 12(h)(3),

PDF

21-30141 | Christopher Scott Sehman

Tue, 10 Aug 2021 00:00:00 -0400

The Court issued these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in support of the order granting Debtor's motion for sanctions for violations of the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. Sect. 362(k). The Court held that after receiving notice of Debtor's bankruptcy, 1) the creditor and its attorney's willfully violated the stay when they submitted a proposed order to the state court's judicial assistant; and 2) the attorney's furthered the initial violation by opposing Debtor's request to vacate the state court order. The creditor and its attorneys argued that the violation was not willful because they believed their actions were purely ministerial. The Court rejected this argument, holding that a belief that an action was not a stay violation is irrelevant to finding that the stay violation is willful. Debtor is entitled to actual damages, which will be determined at a later date along with the issue of punitive damages.

Codes: 362(k), 362(a),

PDF

LexisNexis Citation: 2021 Bankr. LEXIS 2151

WestLaw Citation: 2021 WL 3520430

18-04023 | Nutrien Ag Solutions, Inc. f/k/a Crop Production S v. Gilbert

Tue, 20 Jul 2021 00:00:00 -0400

Plaintiff sought a determination that debt owed by Defendant was nondischargeable under sect. 523(a)(2)(A), 523(a)(2)(B), and 523(a)(6). After a trial, the Court found that Plaintiff failed to establish any claim under those sections. Plaintiff did not prove that Defendant had any intent to deceive Plaintiff when he gave the Assignment to Plaintiff or that Plaintiff justifiably relied on Defendant's representation that he had a valid power of attorney with which to make the assignment. Plaintiff did not prove that Defendant made a materially false written statement. Finally, Plaintiff did not prove that Defendant obtained the debt as the result of any willful or malicious injury.

Codes: 523(a)(2), 523(a)(6),

PDF

LexisNexis Citation: 2021 Bankr. LEXIS 1920

WestLaw Citation: 2021 WL 3069164

19-03009 | Arnold v. Phillips et al

Mon, 28 Jun 2021 00:00:00 -0400

The Court entered this order to show cause why the Court should not sua sponte grant summary judgment in favor of the Defendant when the Plaintiff failed to show that the Defendant caused the willful and malicious injury under 11 U.S.C. Sect. 523(a)(6). The Plaintiff, based on the same nucleus of fact as a state court action, attempted to show that the same act gave rise to a negligence final judgment in state court also gave rise to a willful and malicious cause of action sufficient to render the debt nondischargeable in bankruptcy. The Court required the Plaintiff to show cause as to how issue or claim preclusion did not bar this action in bankruptcy or provide evidence linking the Defendant to the injury.

PDF

18-50205 | Manown Engineering Co, Inc.

Thu, 20 May 2021 00:00:00 -0400

The Court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of its order sustaining the Chapter 7 Trustee's objection to the claim of a creditor who filed a satisfaction of her previous judgment and did not provide evidence of a new obligation owed. The Debtor had paid a lump sum of money to the Creditor with an agreement to pay more if certain assets were sold. The Creditor filed a claim for the entire amount due, claiming the Debtor had committed a material breach of the contract. The Court found that the arrangement contemplated the attempt to sell assets, not a guarantee to sell them, so the Debtor had met its obligation under the parties' agreement and there was no material breach.

Codes: 502(a),

Rules: 3001(f), 7052,

PDF

WestLaw Citation: 2021 WL 2020647

19-03005 | Sunz Insurance Company v. Payroll Management, Inc. et al

Thu, 25 Mar 2021 00:00:00 -0400

On cross-motions for summary judgment under Rule 7056, before the Court was the issue of priority of claims between Plaintiff, a contractual lien creditor, and Defendant, a tax lien creditor. Both Plaintiff and Defendant claimed to have a valid, perfected lien on settlement proceeds that Debtor received as settlement from the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. The Court found that under Article 9 of Florida's UCC, Plaintiff's security interest never attached to the BP Claim because its Security Agreement did not reasonably identify this collateral. The Court then noted that even if Plaintiff's security interest attached, Defendant's tax lien attached before and therefore afforded priority. As such, the Court denied Plaintiff's summary judgment and granted Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment.

Rules: 7056,

PDF

20-04013 | SC Advisors 7, LLC v. Rudnick

Wed, 03 Mar 2021 00:00:00 -0500

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint was dismissed for improper pleading. Plaintiff improperly realleged all facts contained in paragraphs 1–147 in each of seventeen (17) causes of action without indicating which of the numerous facts applied to each cause of action. The Fourth Cause of Action was dismissed with prejudice because it was time-barred. The remaining sixteen (16) causes of action were dismissed without prejudice.

Codes: 523(a)(2), 523(a)(4), 727(a)(2), 727(a)(4),

Rules: 7008, 4004,

PDF

21-00401 | Syteria Hephzibah

Tue, 02 Feb 2021 00:00:00 -0500

The Court issued this order in conjunction with the Injunction Orders finding that the papers submitted by Zoser-Ra Neterkeht El, on behalf of Syteria Hephzibah and Taquan Gullett, were meritless, abusive, frivolous, scandalous, and impertinent. The Court directed the Clerk to not docket the papers in the Involuntary Case but to docket in a miscellaneous case and to then return the papers to the original sender.

Codes: 105, 28 USC 455,

PDF

20-01004 | Melon Acres, Inc. v. Villa et al

Thu, 28 Jan 2021 00:00:00 -0500

Defendant-Debtor's Motion to Dismiss was denied in part because the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) gives rise to a nondischargeable debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(4), and granted in part because Plaintiff engaged in a type of shotgun pleading as to Count II and did not distinguish breach of fiduciary and interference of receipt of trust assets.

Codes: 523(a)(4), 523,

PDF

WestLaw Citation: 625 B.R. 111

20-40375 | United States Corporation Company

Fri, 22 Jan 2021 00:00:00 -0500

Self-Represented Syteria Hephzibah has a history of filing before this Court. After filing a Chapter 11 Involuntary Petition, the Court examined Hephzibah's litigation history in this Court and others and deemed Hephzibah to be a vexatious litigant. Pursuant to the Court's inherent authority and 11 U.S.C. 105(a), the Court permanently enjoined Syteria Hephzibah, and anyone acting in concert or at her behest, from initiating any matter or filing any papers in this Court without prior approval from this Court.

Codes: 105,

Rules: 9011,

PDF

LexisNexis Citation: 2021 Bankr. LEXIS 745

WestLaw Citation: 2021 WL 1100078

15-10274 | Clinton Portis

Thu, 14 Jan 2021 00:00:00 -0500

The Court granted the debtor's motion to reopen his chapter 7 case after the debtor narrowed the reopening to allow him to file amended schedules to mark his mortgage debt as disputed. He sought to amend his schedules to be able to defend a state foreclosure action in which the creditor argued that under the Eleventh Circuit's ruling in Slater II, the debtor could not dispute his mortgage debt after failing to do so in the bankruptcy court. The Court reopened the case under 11 U.S.C. Sect. 350(b) and appointed a Chapter 7 trustee to determine whether the trustee should pursue the defense in the state foreclosure.

Codes: 350(b),

PDF

20-40375 | United States Corporation Company

Fri, 18 Dec 2020 00:00:00 -0500

The Court determined that Petitioning Parties, Syteria Hephzibah and Taquan Gullett, filed the Chapter 11 Involuntary Petition against the Alleged Debtor for an improper purpose and based on claims that were not warranted by existing law or non-frivolous argument. For those reasons, the Court sanctioned Petitioning Parties under Rule 9011 and 11 U.S.C. 105(a) by enjoining them from filing any other voluntary or involuntary petition in this Court without obtaining prior approval from this Court.

Codes: 105,

Rules: 9011,

PDF

LexisNexis Citation: 2020 Bankr. LEXIS 3692

WestLaw Citation: 2020 WL 8921384

19-3005 | Sunz Insurance Company v. Payroll Management, Inc. et al

Tue, 08 Dec 2020 00:00:00 -0500

Both Plaintiff and Defendant filed summary judgments under Rule 7056, asserting they had a valid, perfected lien and requesting the Court to determine the priority of their competing security interests. In an Agreed Order, parties limited the scope of the summary judgments to the question of interpretation of the collateral description in Plaintiff's UCC-1 Financing Statement in order to determine priority. The Court, however, noted that before the issue of priority can be addressed, it must determine attachment as well as perfection. As a result, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f),  the Court required the parties to further brief the issue of attachment under Article 9 of Florida's UCC.

Rules: 7056, 56(f),

PDF

19-03009 | Arnold v. Phillips et al

Fri, 04 Dec 2020 00:00:00 -0500

The Court denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment finding that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant caused willful and malicious injury that would render the debt to the plaintiff nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C Sect. 523(a)(6).

Codes: 523(a)(6),

PDF

19-03011 | TDMA LLC v. Moulton

Mon, 09 Nov 2020 00:00:00 -0500

The Court denied Defendant's motion to compel documents from Plaintiff because the parties did not confer in good faith before filing the motion per N.D. Fla. LBR 7026-1. The Court determined that LBR 7026-1(A) does not contain a futility exception.

Rules: 7026, 7037,

PDF

LexisNexis Citation: 2020 Bankr. LEXIS 3693

WestLaw Citation: 2020 WL 8921387

20-01001 | Bender v. Advantage Capital Entities et al

Mon, 26 Oct 2020 00:00:00 -0400

The Court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 7008 because the Amended Complaint sufficiently alleged at least one Defendant may have received fraudulent transfers or preferential transfers and that Defendants are insiders of the Debtor. The Court also denied the motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) because the Amended Complaint does not comprise the sort of untintelligible pleading that merits a more definite statement.

Rules: 7008, 7012, 12(b),

PDF

LexisNexis Citation: 2020 Bankr. LEXIS 3690

WestLaw Citation: 2020 WL 8919247

19-31379 | Vanessa Nichole Reado

Wed, 07 Oct 2020 00:00:00 -0400

Debtors objected to the Chapter 13 Trustee making distributions to creditors who had filed proofs of claim with secured and unsecured amounts where the secured property had been surrendered. Debtors argued that the creditors with surrendered collateral would have to file unsecured claims to recover the deficiency. The Court looked at 11 U.S.C. Sect. 502(a), Bankruptcy Rules 3001(f) and 3002(c), as well as this Court's local rules to determine that nothing requires a creditor whose collateral is being surrendered to file an amended, unsecured claim post-confirmation to share in the distributions from the trustee.

Codes: 502(a),

Rules: 3001(f), 3002(c),

PDF

19-03012 | Galvin v. U. S. Bank National Association, as Trustee under

Fri, 14 Aug 2020 00:00:00 -0400

The Court dismissed the pro-se plaintiff's adversary proceeding per Civil Rules 12(b)(1) and (6). The Court found that the amended complaint was replete with shotgun pleading, and improperly sought to invalidate a state court final judgment of foreclosure which was barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

Rules: 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6),

PDF

20-40157 | Steven M Leoni

Tue, 11 Aug 2020 00:00:00 -0400

A Chapter 11 creditor filed a motion to extend the deadline to object to discharge and dischargeability. The Court granted the creditor an extension as to an objection to discharge but denied the motion as to an objection to dischargeability because the creditor had failed to exercise adequate diligence in commencing discovery. The creditor had been litigating with the debtor since 2013 and the basis of its dischargeability claim appeared to be a series of fraudulent transfers occurring more than ten years pre-petition. The Court found that the creditor's failure to commence any discovery until nearly two months after its appearance in the case, in light of its history with the debtor, demonstrated insufficient diligence for an extension.

Codes: 523, 727, 341,

Rules: 4007(c),

PDF

LexisNexis Citation: 2020 Bankr. LEXIS 2323

WestLaw Citation: 2020 WL 5094662

15-40593 | Jacqueline Hill

Tue, 04 Aug 2020 00:00:00 -0400

The Court denied a second motion by Debtor seeking injunctive relief from the Chapter 13 Trustee for not conforming the plan distributions to the underlying loan documents. Debtor received a discharge and the case was closed, then Debtor fell behind in mortgage payments, causing the lender to file a state foreclosure action. The Court found no authority for what Debtor was seeking, and denied the motion. The Court noted that the appropriate action would have been to file an action against the lender under 11 U.S.C. Sect. 524(i) or file a notice under Rule 3002.1(f).

Codes: 524,

Rules: 3002.1,

PDF

LexisNexis Citation: 619 B.R. 496

WestLaw Citation: 619 B.R. 496

19-01002 | Condor Aerial, LLC v. Novus Capital Group

Fri, 10 Jul 2020 00:00:00 -0400

Defendant sought summary judgment on the basis that: (1) Plaintiff lacked standing to object to its Proof of Claim; and (2) Plaintiff offered no evidence in support of its allegations that the Proof of Claim should be disallowed as invalid or the result of a fraudulent transfer. Defendant alleged that the Trustee is the proper party to object, and a creditor should seek leave of court before objecting. The Court ruled that Plaintiff was a party in interest as defined in the Code and absent binding Eleventh Circuit precedent, had standing to object to another creditor’s Proof of Claim.

Codes: 502, 510(c)(1),

Rules: 7056, 3001,

PDF

WestLaw Citation: 2020 WL 4001031

19-04034 | Colon v. Molina

Fri, 26 Jun 2020 00:00:00 -0400

Defendant filed motion for summary judgment under Rule 7056 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure alleging no genuine issue of material fact. The adversary complaint was filed under 11 U.S.C. Sections 727(a)(2)(B), (a)(4)(A), and (a)(6)(A). The Court granted the motion as to Sect. 727(a)(2)(B) because the transfer complained of was not made after the petition date and was not of property of the bankruptcy estate. The Court also granted the motion as to Sect. 727(a)(6)(A) as there was no allegation that Defendant had violated a court order. The Court denied the motion as to Sect. 727(a)(4) because there was a genuine issue of Defendant's intent when she made a pre-petition transfer of her exempt tax refund to her son for a medical procedure.

Codes: 727,

Rules: 7056,

PDF

WestLaw Citation: 2020 WL 4001042

19-03009 | Arnold v. Phillips et al

Fri, 12 Jun 2020 00:00:00 -0400

A judgment creditor in a Chapter 7 brought an adversary proceeding against joint debtors seeking a denial of their discharge under § 727 and a determination that the judgment debt was nondischargeable under § 523. Creditor filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that the judgment arose from one debtor's intentional damage to creditor's property, and citing instances of expense sharing between debtors and one debtor's sole-proprietorship, transfers of property, and concealment of assets. The Court denied the motion, finding creditor failed to produce any evidence demonstrating intentional injury or intent to hinder, delay, or defraud, and that debtor's sole-proprietorship could not be the basis for a claim that debtors' bankruptcy was not an individual case.

Codes: 727(a)(1), 523(a)(6), 109(a), 101(41), 727(a)(2),

Rules: 7056, 9017,

PDF

WestLaw Citation: 2020 WL 4001038

19-30380 | Michelle Dianne Murray

Wed, 10 Jun 2020 00:00:00 -0400

Debtor’s former husband sought monetary and injunctive relief based on what he believed to be a violation of the parties’ dissolution of marriage settlement agreement. The creditor also sought to have his late filed claim allowed in the debtor’s Chapter 13 case. Relying on 11 U.S.C. Sect. 502(b)(9) and Bankruptcy Rules 3002(c) and 9006(b), the Court found it had virtually no leeway to allow a late-file claim in Chapter 13 cases. The Court specifically noted that excusable neglect, even if plead, does not apply in Chapter 13. As to injunctive relief, the Court found that the creditor’s issues should be addressed in the court that approved the dissolution of marriage agreement and did not grant the requested relief.

Codes: 502(b)(9),

Rules: 3002(c), 9006(b),

PDF

19-30380 | Michelle Dianne Murray

Wed, 10 Jun 2020 00:00:00 -0400

Debtor's former spouse sought allowance of late filed proof of claim in a Chapter 13 case and a temporary restraining order against Debtor for alleged harassment and threats. The Court denied the request to allow late filed claim under 11 U.S.C. Sect. 502(b)(9) and Rules 3002(c) and 9006(b) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, finding that late filed claims were not allowed in Chapter 13 cases unless one of seven exceptions was met. The Court denied the request for a temporary restraining order because an underlying state court issued the same injunctive relief in the parties' divorce proceeding.

Codes: 502(b)(9),

Rules: 3002(c), 9006(b),

PDF

18-03014 | Utah Power Systems, LLC v. Adams et al

Mon, 01 Jun 2020 00:00:00 -0400

The Court granted summary judgment because the unrefutable evidence showed that Defendant deliberately and in bad faith concealed and failed to list assets and transfers of assets, Plaintiff had no notice of possible fraud until after discharge was entered and Plaintiff exercised sufficient dilligence in investigating facts prior to disrchagre. Any additional efforts to obtain discovery from Debtors would have been futile given Debtors' track record of avoiding discovery.

Codes: 523(a)(2), 727(a)(5), 727(a)(4), 323, 541, 547(b), 727, 542, 543, 727(d),

Rules: 7008, 7026, 2004, 7008,

PDF

12-50370 | Larry Bruce Thacker

Thu, 28 May 2020 00:00:00 -0400

A Chapter 7 creditor filed an application for administrative expenses incurred in successfully defending against the debtor's appeal of a prepetition state court fraudulent transfer judgment. The judgment had voided debtor's transfer of substantially all his assets, depriving the trustee of cash for a significant period postpetition while the appeal pended. The Court approved the application, finding that the term "including" in 503(b) enabled application of the statute beyond its explicitly enumerated provisions, that creditor's actions conferred a substantial benefit on the estate and did not risk conflict with the trustee, and that the fees sought were reasonable in light of the task performed.

Codes: 102(3), 503(b), 330(a)(4),

PDF

20-01002 | Owens v. Educational Credit Management Corporation

Thu, 28 May 2020 00:00:00 -0400

Prior to confirmation of Chapter 13 plan, debtor filed an adversary proceeding seeking a determination that his student loans were dischargeable on the basis of undue hardship. Defendant, the loan servicer, filed a motion to dismiss on the basis of prudential ripeness. The Court granted the motion, finding that because debtor would not be eligible to receive a discharge for many years, if at all, an undue hardship determination was not prudentially ripe given the uncertainty of the outcome in the bankruptcy case and the underdevelopment of relevant aspects of debtor's financial condition.

Codes: 523(a)(8), 1328(a), 1307(b),

Rules: 7012, 4004(c), 4007(b),

PDF

20-03005 | Plott v. Nationstar Mortgage et al

Thu, 14 May 2020 00:00:00 -0400

Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss, which the Court denied as Moot. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint concurrent with her objection to the Motion to Dismiss. The Court ruled that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1), Plaintiff was allowed to amend her Complaint as a matter of course.

Rules: 7007, 7015,

PDF

18-03014 | Utah Power Systems, LLC v. Adams et al

Tue, 12 May 2020 00:00:00 -0400

Plaintiff sought summary judgment to revoke defendants’ discharge. Defendants failed to respond. The Court requested additional briefing as to the second prong of Section 727(d)(1) that “the requesting party did not know of such fraud until after the granting of such discharge.” The Court noted that a creditor is required to have exercised diligence in investigating the facts during the administrative bankruptcy case, especially after having been put on notice of possible fraud and under certain circumstances. In the absence of diligence by the creditor revocation of a debtor’s discharge is improper.

Codes: 727(d)(1),

Rules: 7056,

PDF

18-40381 | Syteria Hephzibah

Wed, 06 May 2020 00:00:00 -0400

Self-Represented Debtor filed documents attempting direct appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court found that Debtor had not properly updated her address under Rule 4002 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. The Court also held that the documents were untimely under Rule 8002 and that Debtor did not follow the proper procedure for filing a direct appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals under 28 U.S.C. Sect. 158(d)(2) and Rule 8006 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. The Court declined to certify the case for a direct appeal and directed the documents to be sent to the District Court for the Northern District of Florida for Consideration, despite the documents being untimely.

Codes: 28 USC 158,

Rules: 4002, 8002,

PDF

19-30082 | Martin James Dekom, Sr.

Fri, 17 Apr 2020 00:00:00 -0400

The Court held a final evidentiary hearing to consider confirmation of Debtor’s Sixth Amended Chapter 13 Plan and whether to grant stay relief to Nationstar. During the evidentiary hearing, the Court accepted into evidence, without objection, a document Nationstar’s witness described as a certified copy of the Final Judgment of Foreclosure rendered by the Supreme Court for the State of New York on December 2, 2014. The Court held that this late filed objection was untimely under the Rule 103 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and was yet another attempt to litigate the underlying foreclosure judgment which this Court ruled was final and barred by the Rooker Feldman doctrine and res judicata.

Rules: 9023, 9024, 103,

PDF

19-30082 | Martin James Dekom, Sr.

Wed, 08 Apr 2020 00:00:00 -0400

The Court held a final evidentiary hearing to determine confirmation of Debtor’s Sixth Amended Chapter 13 Plan. After the evidentiary hearing, the Court ruled on a prior motion filed by Debtor to disqualify the Chapter 13 Trustee and her counsel. On that motion the Court imposed Rule 9011 sanctions on Debtor and dismissed the case with prejudice for one year. In the confirmation order, the Court looked at the totality of the circumstances and determined that the case should be dismissed for cause under 11 U.S.C. 349(a) in addition to the already imposed Rule 9011 sanction.

Codes: 349, 109(g),

Rules: 9011,

PDF

WESTLAW

19-30082 | Martin James Dekom, Sr.

Mon, 06 Apr 2020 00:00:00 -0400

The Court held an evidentiary hearing after which it denied confirmation of Debtor’s Sixth Amended Chapter 13 Plan and granted stay relief to judgment creditor, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC. The Court found that Debtor did not file this Plan nor was he seeking confirmation in good faith. The Court completed an extensive analysis of Eleventh Circuit factors, as applied to this case, to determine lack of good faith. The Court also ruled that the Sixth Amended Plan was not feasible.

Codes: 362, 1325,

PDF

19-30082 | Martin James Dekom, Sr.

Mon, 06 Apr 2020 00:00:00 -0400

Debtor filed a motion seeking to disqualify the Chapter 13 Trustee and her counsel and impose Rule 9011 sanctions. The Court ruled that the motion was filled with factual allegations which were not true and imposed sanctions on Debtor by dismissing the case with prejudice and prohibiting Debtor from filing bankruptcy under any chapter of the Bankruptcy Code for one year in any court in the United States.

Codes: 327, 1302, 105, 349,

Rules: 9013, 9011,

PDF

18-3005 | Harvey v. DeVos et al

Tue, 24 Mar 2020 00:00:00 -0400

Chapter 7 debtor filed an adversary proceeding seeking a determination that her student loans were dischargeable on the basis of undue hardship. Following discovery, the US Department of Education filed a motion for summary judgment. The Court granted the motion, finding that debtor's clear failure to minimize expenses and maximize income precluded a finding that she had made a good faith effort to repay her loans, guaranteeing failure under the Brunner test.

Codes: 523(a)(8),

Rules: 7056,

PDF

18-01005 | Chiappetta v. Thomas

Thu, 20 Feb 2020 00:00:00 -0500

Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal which was procedurally deficient under Rule 7041, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. After the trial, and self-represented Defendant's request for dismissal, the Court found the case was due to be involuntarily dismissed under Rule 41(b) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, made applicable by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7041.

Rules: 7041,

PDF

18-01006 | Chiappetta v. Thomas

Thu, 20 Feb 2020 00:00:00 -0500

20-30037 | Florida First City Banks, Inc.

Fri, 14 Feb 2020 00:00:00 -0500

A bank holding company filed under Chapter 11 and concurrently filed an expedited motion to approve bidding procedures for its only asset, the shares of its bank subsidiary. The debtor entered bankruptcy with a stalking horse bidder identified and the debtor asserted that expedited bidding procedures were necessary to avoid an imminent closure by the FDIC. The debtor asserted that more comprehensive marketing was unnecessary because the bank subsidiary had been marketed pre-petition. The Court granted the motion, but did not shorten bidding procedures to the extent requested because the debtor had provided insufficient evidence of its pre-petition marketing efforts. For the same reason, the Court also required the debtor to hire a professional to market the asset in advance of the bid deadline.

Codes: 363(b), 1123,

Rules: 2002, 6004, 9014,

PDF

19-30082 | Martin James Dekom, Sr.

Tue, 11 Feb 2020 00:00:00 -0500

After appealing a prior order of the Court overruling, in part, his objection to claim, the Chapter 13 debtor filed a motion to stay pending appeal. The Court denied the motion, finding that debtor had failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, a substantial risk of irreparable harm, a lack of substantial harm to other interested persons, a lack of harm to the public interest.

Rules: 8007,

PDF

18-01005 | Chiappetta v. Thomas

Mon, 03 Feb 2020 00:00:00 -0500

The Court denied Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment under Rule 7056 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure on the basis that the motion was replete with conclusory statements and Plaintiff's burden had not been met to grant summary judgment. The Court also found that the answers to interrogatories Plaintiff relied on in support of the motion were procedurally deficient under Rule 33, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, made applicable by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7033.

Rules: 7056, 7041, 7033,

PDF

18-01006 | Chiappetta v. Thomas

Mon, 03 Feb 2020 00:00:00 -0500

19-30082 | Martin James Dekom, Sr.

Thu, 30 Jan 2020 00:00:00 -0500

The Court held a preliminary hearing on the objection to Claim and held that the final judgment of foreclosure held by Nationstar was final and attempts by Debtor to relitigate issues determined by that judgment was barred as res judicata and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

PDF

18-01005 | Chiappetta v. Thomas

Thu, 23 Jan 2020 00:00:00 -0500

The Court disapproved a stipulation for settlement filed by Plaintiff, finding that the settlement fell below the standard of fairness, reasonableness or adequacy, using the four-factor test adopted by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in In re Justice Oaks II, Ltd., 898 F.2d 1544 (11th Cir. 1990).

PDF

18-01006 | Chiappetta v. Thomas

Thu, 23 Jan 2020 00:00:00 -0500

19-30082 | Martin James Dekom, Sr.

Tue, 21 Jan 2020 00:00:00 -0500

Self-represented Debtor filed a motion to vacate and declare an order of the district court void for violating the automatic stay. The Court determined that the district court did not violate the automatic stay as the Memorandum and Order did not constitute a judgment against the Debtor, his property or property of the estate within the contemplation and meaning of the automatic stay. The motion was denied for a variety of reasons.

Codes: 362,

PDF

19-40279 | General Capacitor, LLC

Thu, 09 Jan 2020 00:00:00 -0500

Debtor in a small business Chapter 11 filed a Motion to Convert to Chapter 7. Interested party filed an objection to the Motion claiming that debtor filed their Petition in bad faith. The Court held a hearing and analyzed 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b). The Court determined that conversion of a Chapter 11 case was not an absolute right and that it was in the best interest of the creditors to convert the case to Chapter 7.

Codes: 1112,

PDF

LexisNexis Citation: 2020 Bankr. LEXIS 1878

WestLaw Citation: 2020 WL 4000850

19-03011 | TDMA LLC v. Moulton

Tue, 31 Dec 2019 00:00:00 -0500

The Court granted a motion to dismiss the two-count adversary proceeding. As to Count I, plead under 11 U.S.C. Sect. 727(a)(2) for two reasons: 1) Plaintiff did not allege that the transfers complained of were property of the debtor (required under Section 727(a)(2)(A)), or property of the estate (required under Section 727(a)(2)(B)); and 2) Plaintiff did not allege that Defendant concealed assets from creditors for purposes of the "Doctrine of Continuing Concealment." As to Count II, plead under 11 U.S.C. Sect. 727(a)(4), the Court granted the motion to dismiss because the complaint contained improper shotgun pleading, which is disallowed in the Eleventh Circuit (Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir. 2015)).

Codes: 727,

PDF

19-03011 | TDMA LLC v. Moulton

Fri, 13 Dec 2019 00:00:00 -0500

Plaintiff filed motion to disqualify Defendant's counsel because Plaintiff alleged Defendant's counsel was a material and necessary witness to issues giving rise to the complaint and that counsel was simultaneously representing Defendant/Debtor and a creditor of Debtor. The Court denied the motion as premature, using case law out of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (Hermann v. GutterGuard, Inc., 199 Fed. Appx. 745 (11th Cir. 1982) and Norton v. Tallahassee Mem'l Hospital, 689 F.2d 938 (11th Cir. 1982)); Local Rule 11.1(G)(1) out of the Northern District of Florida; and Rule 4-3.7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Florida Bar.

PDF

19-40286 | Claire Dees

Fri, 04 Oct 2019 00:00:00 -0400

Debtor and non-filing spouse filed 14 combined cases to allegedly recover a refund on an invalid and void note. After an evidentiary hearing, the Court found venue was not proper in this district and transferred the case. Debtor listed an incorrect address on her petition, did not provide an explanation for why she filed in this District, and failed, despite 4 court orders, to file missing paperwork. Under 28 U.S.C. Sect. 1408 and Rules 1014 and 9030 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, the Court determined the case should be transferred to the district in which Debtor and non-filing spouse had filed the majority of their previous cases.

Codes: 1408, 9030,

Rules: 1014,

PDF

18-01002 | Southeastern Funding Partners, LLLP et al v. Williams et al

Thu, 03 Oct 2019 00:00:00 -0400

The Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Defendants' Counter and Third-Party Complaint. The Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act claim was dismissed because the Third-Party/Defendant was not a consumer as defined in the FCCPA. The automatic stay violation claims were dismissed with prejudice for all pre-petition acts, but dismissed with leave to amend for all post-petition acts pursuant to section 362(k). The civil conspiracy claim was dismissed with leave to amend to join all required parties under Rule 19.

Codes: 362,

Rules: 7008, 8, 19,

PDF

17-40185 | Campbellton-Graceville Hospital Corporation

Thu, 22 Aug 2019 00:00:00 -0400

The Liquidating Trustee requested the Court extend the statute of limitations deadline for filing adversary proceedings under 11 U.S.C. §§ 546 and 108. The Court held an evidentiary hearing and found cause to extend the deadline to file actions under 11 U.S.C. § 546. Based on the unique circumstances in the case including the extensive fraud perpetrated on the Debtor as well as years long efforts by the Liquidating Trustee to uncover the complex transfers, the court determined that the limitations period under Section 108(a) was suspended during the case and the time to file actions under Section 108 for non-bankruptcy causes of action was equitably tolled under the fraudulent concealment doctrine and principles of equitable tolling.

Codes: 108, 546,

Rules: 7001, 9006,

PDF

18-04023 | Nutrien Ag Solutions, Inc. f/k/a Crop Production S v. Gilbert

Tue, 18 Jun 2019 00:00:00 -0400

The Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss as moot because Defendant contemporaneously filed an answer to Plaintiff's Complaint. The Court cited to the Eleventh Circuit's decision, in Skrtich v. Thornton, 280 F.3d 1295 (11th Cir. 2002), which found that a motion to dismiss becomes improper once a responsive pleading has been filed.

Rules: 7012(b),

PDF

19-04006 | Jonsson v. Stinson

Tue, 18 Jun 2019 00:00:00 -0400

The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint on shotgun pleading grounds and discussed Plaintiff’s failure to allege the elements of a cause of action for an alter ego claim. Neither did the exhibits attached to the Complaint mention Defendant, in his individual capacity.

Codes: 523(a)(2), 523(a)(4),

PDF

18-03009 | Raymond James and Associates, Inc. v. Camferdam

Wed, 15 May 2019 00:00:00 -0400

The Court entered an order Denying without Prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order for failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure which requires that movant file a certification that it “has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without Court action.” Here, the movant failed to submit any such certification and it was apparent to the Court that a more direct approach in the case was necessary. In this Order, the Court set out its expectation of the parties, as it applies to all litigants, in future discovery disputes brought before the Court.

PDF

18-04019 | Chancellor v. Echols

Wed, 08 May 2019 00:00:00 -0400

Plaintiff filed a motion for Summary Judgment seeking denial of discharge. The Court reasoned that when a debtor omits important facts and information and does not make a full disclosure, the debtor places his right to discharge in serious jeopardy. The Court determined that the Motion should be granted as to Count II and denied Debtor’s discharge.

Codes: 727,

Rules: 7056,

PDF

19-30181 | Sandra Herring

Thu, 02 May 2019 00:00:00 -0400

After filing a second bankruptcy case in this district in the past one year, Debtor filed a motion to extend the automatic stay in her second case. The Court denied Debtor’s motion because Debtor failed to file the motion, notice it or have a hearing on it completed within 30 days of commencing the second case. The language in § 362(c)(3) is mandatory.

Codes: 362, 362(c)(3),

PDF

17-10189 | Robert B. Worobec

Fri, 19 Apr 2019 00:00:00 -0400

Debtor had filed a total of 6 bankruptcy cases in Florida since 2003. After over a year from the order dismissing his most recent case and enjoining Debtor from filing a petition under any Chapter of the Bankruptcy Code for 180 days was entered, Debtor filed a motion, seeking: (i) to reopen his case; (ii) entry of an order vacating the order dismissing his case; (iii) a hearing to determine whether he was in default of payments under the Chapter 13 plan that was pending at the time his case was dismissed; (iv) a determination of how much he had paid to the Chapter 13 trustee; and (v) to amend pleadings, objections, and file responses to motions. The Court denied Debtor’s motion because it: (1) improperly sought to reopen a case that was not closed but was dismissed with prejudice; (2) sought more than one form of relief in violation of the Court’s local rule; (3) was untimely under Rules 59(e) and 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and was insufficiently pled as it did not contain sufficient grounds for reconsideration; and (4) sought relief under § 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, which was not applicable. Additionally, Debtor was forewarned that the Court may sanction him if he files additional, unsubstantiated and improper pleadings.

Codes: 1307, 109(g), 362, 105,

Rules: 9023, 9024, 9011,

PDF

18-50089 | Dahlia Andreen Harrison

Fri, 08 Mar 2019 00:00:00 -0500

The Court entered an inter order determining that Credtior had willfully violated the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. 362(a) and ordering Creditor to brief whether the Court should award damages for emotional distress and punitive damages under 11 U.S.C. 362(k), which was set for a final evidentiary hearing. After the final evidentary hearing, the Court held that Creditor's finalizing of the foreclosure sale, with the knowledge that Debtor had filed for bankruptcy , was a deliberate and intentional violation of the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. 362(a). The Court also held that Creditor's bankruptcy counsel willfully violated the automatic stay by making false and misleading mirespresentations to the Court about their client's actions and by failing to stop their client's actions. The Court awarded Debtor compensatiory damages, including damages for emotional distress, and punitive damages purusant to 11 U.S.C. 362(k). The Court further ordered Creditor's counsel to show cause why this Court should not impose additional sanctions under Rule 9011.

Codes: 362,

Rules: 9011,

PDF

18-50089 | Dahlia Andreen Harrison

Fri, 08 Mar 2019 00:00:00 -0500

The Court entered an inter order determining that Credtior had willfully violated the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) and ordering Creditor to brief whether the Court should award damages for emotional distress and punitive damages under 11 U.S.C. § 362(k), which was set for a final evidentiary hearing. After the final evidentary hearing, the Court held that Creditor's finalizing of the foreclosure sale, with the knowledge that Debtor had filed for bankruptcy , was a deliberate and intentional violation of the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). The Court also held that Creditor's bankruptcy counsel willfully violated the automatic stay by making false and misleading mirespresentations to the Court about their client's actions and by failing to stop their client's actions. The Court awarded Debtor compensatiory damages, including damages for emotional distress, and punitive damages purusant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(k).  The Court further ordered Creditor's counsel to show cause why this Court should not impose additional sanctions under Rule 9011.

Codes: 362(a), 362(k),

Rules: 9011,

PDF

18-01002 | Southeastern Funding Partners, LLLP et al v. Williams et al

Wed, 27 Feb 2019 00:00:00 -0500

The Court denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. As to Count I, the Court found that Plaintiff had plead enough facts to plausibly give rise to an alter-ego cause of action and that Defendant had not met his burden under Rule 19 to show that joinder of an indispensable party is necessary. As to Count II, the Court found that Plaintiff had sufficiently alleged that Defendant intentionally made a misrepresentation to which Plaintiff justifiably relied on under section 523(a)(2)(A). The Court found that Counts III and IV asserted a plausible basis for relief under 727(a)(4)(A) and 727(a)(5).

Codes: 523(a)(2), 727(a)(4), 727(a)(5),

Rules: 7008,

PDF

17-03008 | Venn, Jr., Trustee v. Venetian Antiques and Interiors Corp.

Tue, 08 Jan 2019 00:00:00 -0500

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss presented two issues: 1) Whether the bankruptcy trustee has standing to bring an alter ego cause of action, and 2) whether the Bankruptcy Code authorizes substantive consolidation of a debtor and non-debtor entity. The Court found that based on the Icarus test out the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, a bankruptcy trustee does have standing to bring an alter ego cause of action because here, 1) the claim was a general claim that would benefit all creditors; and 2) under Florida law, a bankruptcy has standing to bring an alter ego action. The Court also found that substantive consolidation of a debtor and non-debtor entity does not contravene the bankruptcy code, and in certain circumstances, is warranted. The Court denied the motion to dismiss.

Codes: 105,

PDF

18-01002 | Southeastern Funding Partners, LLLP et al v. Williams et al

Mon, 17 Dec 2018 00:00:00 -0500

The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint on shotgun pleading grounds. The Court relied on the Eleventh Circuit’s recent ruling in Vibe Micro, Inc. v. Shabanets, 878 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2018) in explaining, in detail, how the Second Amended Complaint presented shotgun pleading. Plaintiff was given one opportunity to plead properly, or the Court would dismiss the adversary case with prejudice. The Court also dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with regard to one defendant, with prejudice, as Plaintiff had failed at a third attempt to plead sufficient facts to state a plausible claim against her.

Codes: 727, 523,

Rules: 7008, 8, 7009, 9, 7012, 12,

PDF

18-30651 | Roy Lowe

Mon, 10 Dec 2018 00:00:00 -0500

The Court denied a motion to reconsider its previous order denying a motion for sanctions because a vehicle repossession pre-petition did not violate the automatic stay. The Court considered the motion under the Rule 59(e) standard, and found that no newly discovered evidence or manifest error of law existed, such that the motion should be reconsidered. The Court found that the actions complained of by Debtor occurred pre-petition, so under Florida law, title to the vehicle transferred, the vehicle was not property of the bankruptcy estate, and no violation of the stay existed. The Court based its ruling on the Eleventh Circuit case, In re Kalter, 292 F.3d 1350 (11th Cir. 2002).

Codes: 541, 362,

Rules: 9023, 59,

PDF

18-30160 | Michael Edward Camferdam

Fri, 07 Dec 2018 00:00:00 -0500

The Court granted, in part, a motion to compel documents from Debtor who had previously agreed to produce them at the Rule 2004 exam. Creditor filed the motion to compel after Debtor’s denial of having agreed to produce the documents. Debtor opposed the motion to compel on two bases: 1) under the “pending proceeding” rule, Creditor must pursue the documents through the then filed adversary case; and 2) the documents did not belong to Debtor, and were in the possession, custody, and control of a third party. The Court did not apply the “pending proceeding” rule because the documents were requested long before the adversary proceeding was commenced. The Court also held that Creditor had not provided sufficient evidence that the documents requested were in Debtor’s possession, custody, and control, so the Court could not require Debtor to produce them. The Court required Debtor to produce all documents that he had in his possession, custody, and control, that were responsive to Creditor’s requests.

PDF

18-30674 | Cody Allen Creamer

Tue, 27 Nov 2018 00:00:00 -0500

The Court denied a Creditor’s motion to reopen a Chapter 13 case on the basis that the Court no longer had jurisdiction. Creditor filed its motion two months after dismissal of the Chapter 13 case, and sought an order granting it relief from the stay. The Court differentiated between reopening a closed case, and vacating an order dismissing a case. The Court pointed to its previous opinion, stating “[c]losing a case after full administration of a plan . . . creates rights . . . that may very well have to be adjudicated . . . at a later time. But the results of a dismissal have different consequences.” The Court found that because the case had been dismissed, and the order was final prior to Creditor filing its motion to reopen, the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction had dissipated, and there was not a case to reopen.

Rules: 9023, 59,

PDF

18-10143 | David Brian Mullinix and Kay Michele Mullinix

Thu, 18 Oct 2018 00:00:00 -0400

A Creditor filed a motion to dismiss Debtors’ Ch. 13 case with prejudice because it was the Debtors’ third case in two years, prolonging the foreclosure of the property Creditors held the mortgage on. The Court dismissed the case, without prejudice, on the basis that the “willful” requirement under 11 U.S.C. § 109(g)(1) had not been met. Debtors were represented in their first case, but their attorney became ill and unable to continue representation. In the second and third cases, Debtors appeared pro se, and testified that they did not understand the requirements of filing schedules, a chapter 13 plan, and making regular plan payments. Debtors appeared at every hearing, made payments after being ordered to do so, and appeared credible to the Court. Based on those reasons, the Court did not bar Debtors from refiling.

Codes: 109, 1307, 105,

PDF

WESTLAW

18-40398 | Grace C Hernandez

Mon, 15 Oct 2018 00:00:00 -0400

The Court dismissed Debtor’s third Chapter 13 case within two years. In all three cases, Debtor failed to file the required documents, including schedules, certificate of credit counseling, and chapter 13 plan. The Court held that because the Debtor failed to abide by the Court’s duties of the debtor orders, her case was due to be dismissed, and she be barred from re-filing for a period of 180 days.

Codes: 521, 109,

PDF

WESTLAW

18-10046 | John Doyle Tumbleson, Jr. and Karen Lynn Tumbleson

Wed, 01 Aug 2018 00:00:00 -0400

The Court denied two motions for extension of time to file complaints pursuant to §§ 523 and 727. The Creditor appeared at the §341 meeting of creditors, and even followed up with questions to Debtor’s counsel after the §341 meeting. The Creditor, with ample notice and knowledge of the deadline to file complaints under §§ 523 and 727, sought an extension on the basis that its state court and bankruptcy counsel were engaged in obtaining discovery from Debtor, who stopped cooperating. The Court analyzed the motions for extension under the requirements in Rules 4004 and 4007, and this Court’s precedent in In re Watson, 2014 WL 10879203 (Bankr. N.D. Fla. May 21, 2014), to deny the motions. The Court based its ruling primarily on the fact that the Creditor did not exercise sufficient diligence to justify an extension of time to file complaints.

Codes: 523, 727,

Rules: 4004, 4007,

PDF

17-04018 | Akins et al v. Jones

Mon, 02 Jul 2018 00:00:00 -0400

The Court granted a motion to dismiss the adversary proceeding because the complaint was filed after the deadline to file a non-dischargeability complaint under § 523. Plaintiffs did not file a motion to extend the deadline to file a complaint prior to the deadline expiring, as required under Rule 4007. The Court found that Plaintiffs had notice of the bankruptcy proceeding with ample opportunity to request an extension of time to file a complaint but did not. While not included on the debtor’s original schedules, Plaintiffs were included on the debtor’s amended schedules more than one month prior to the deadline expiring. The Court held granted the motion to dismiss based on Plaintiffs’ actual knowledge of the bankruptcy case, and duty to appraise themselves of all deadlines in the case.

Codes: 523,

Rules: 4007,

PDF

17-40185 | Campbellton-Graceville Hospital Corporation

Thu, 15 Mar 2018 00:00:00 -0400

Potential debtor of the Debtor in a Chapter 11 proceeding did not have standing as a "party in interest" to seek disqualification of the duly appointed counsel to the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors, as it failed to hold a legally protected interest that could be affected by the Committee in the case.

Codes: 1109,

PDF

16-03015 | Venn, Jr., Trustee v. Cannon et al

Fri, 16 Jun 2017 00:00:00 -0400

The Plaintiff/Trustee alleged that the Defendant/Debtor was the alter ego of his business. To pierce the corporate veil, the Plaintiff would have to prove, that 1) the shareholder dominated and controlled the corporation to such an extent that the corporation’s independent existence was in fact non-existent and the shareholder was in fact the alter ego of the corporation; 2) the corporate form must have been used fraudulently or for an improper purpose; and 3) the fraudulent or improper use of the corporate form caused injury to the claimant. The Court ultimately found that the Plaintiff did not show fraud or improper purpose, so the corporate veil could not be pierced.

PDF

15-30451 | Shane L Cannon

Mon, 05 Jun 2017 00:00:00 -0400

A creditor filed an objection to claim of another creditor on the basis that the claim had been satisfied by a recorded “Satisfaction of Judgment” in the state court action. The creditor in the state court action claimed the “Satisfaction of Judgment” was due to a scrivener’s error and sought to revise the document in state court. The Court found the objecting creditor had no standing as he had not yet filed a claim in the bankruptcy case, and would only potentially have standing if the Court found in favor of the Trustee in a related adversary proceeding. The Court overruled the objection to claim.

Codes: 502,

Rules: 3007,

PDF

15-30451 | Shane L Cannon

Mon, 05 Jun 2017 00:00:00 -0400

The Debtor objected to a claim on the basis that the claim had been satisfied by a recorded “Satisfaction of Judgment” in the state court action. The creditor in the state court action claimed the “Satisfaction of Judgment” was due to a scrivener’s error and sought to revise the document in state court. The Court found that the objection should be overruled because traditionally, Chapter 7 debtors only have standing to object if: 1) there could be a surplus that would inure to the debtor’s benefit; or 2) where a claim will not be discharged; this was not surplus case, and the accompanying adversary case regarding non-dischargeability had not yet been decided.

Codes: 502,

Rules: 3007,

PDF

16-50224 | Adam John Steverson and Vicki Lee Steverson

Wed, 24 May 2017 00:00:00 -0400

Chapter 13 Trustee objected to Debtors’ inclusion of a “miscellaneous expense” in their calculation of disposable income. The Court examined 11 U.S.C. §1325(b)(2), which defines disposable income as “current monthly income received by the debtor… less amounts reasonably necessary to be expended.” The Court then looked to 11 U.S.C. §1325 (b)(3), which identifies what expenses qualify as “amounts reasonably necessary to be expended,” for purposes of the means test, codified by 11 U.S.C. §707(b)(2)(A). The Court determined that the Debtors would have to provide proof of the miscellaneous expense to be able to claim it.

Codes: 1325, 707,

PDF

17-10021 | Buford Carl Brown, III

Wed, 19 Apr 2017 00:00:00 -0400

The Court granted prospective stay relief to creditor, finding that Debtor had filed his case as a part of a scheme to delay, hinder or defraud creditor that involved multiple tag-team filings by Debtor and his mother. The Court also dismissed the case with prejudice, finding that Debtor filed his petition in bad faith.

Codes: 362, 1307, 349,

Rules: 9014,

PDF

14-50374 | The Intown Companies, Inc.

Fri, 14 Apr 2017 00:00:00 -0400

Court dismissed a single asset Chapter 11 Debtor case on creditor’s motion. The evidence at the confirmation hearing showed that the real property of the debtor continued to deteriorate and debtor could not afford to make proposed plan payments, pay its operating expenses, and make necessary capital improvements. The Court found that the plan was not feasible. The Court also found that since the creditor filed an objection to confirmation, it would be subject to a cramdown, which the Debtor could not justify.

Codes: 1129, 1112, 1111, 362,

Rules: 7052,

PDF

13-1007 | Spence et al v. Hintze et al

Thu, 09 Feb 2017 00:00:00 -0500

Plaintiffs filed complaint seeking denial of Defendant-Debtors’ discharge under 11 U.S.C. §727(a)(2)(A). After trial, Court granted judgment in favor of Plaintiffs, finding that Debtors had destroyed their property within one year before filing, by transferring their membership interest in corporate assets to a third party without any consideration, based in part on the Court’s finding that Debtors were the alter ego of their corporation.

Codes: 727,

PDF

14-01005 | Bender et al v. Hintze et al

Fri, 03 Feb 2017 00:00:00 -0500

The Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, finding that the counts sought to be dismissed were outside the court’s jurisdiction, as their resolution would have no effect on the bankruptcy estate nor would they affect the Debtors, especially in light of the fact that Debtors’ discharges were denied in a separate adversary proceeding. 28 U.S.C. § 157

PDF

16-30618 | Robert Michael Ardis

Fri, 06 Jan 2017 00:00:00 -0500

Court denied self-represented Debtor’s motion for reconsideration of the order granting the Trustee’s motion to dismiss Debtor’s case with prejudice. The Court held that the Debtor was not entitled to relief under either Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 or Fed. R. Civ. P. 60, Debtor relied solely on unsupported allegations that even if taken as true, did not excuse the Debtor’s failure to comply with court orders, the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rules.

Rules: 9023, 9024,

PDF

16-30618 | Robert Michael Ardis

Tue, 08 Nov 2016 00:00:00 -0500

Court denied a motion to recuse filed by a self-represented Debtor. Debtor alleged that the Court was biased against him because the Court granted the Chapter 13 Trustee’s motion to dismiss. After noting that 28 U.S.C. § 144 does not apply to bankruptcy judges, the Court ruled, under 28 U.S.C. § 455, that the events at the hearing on the motion to dismiss did not demonstrate any actual or appearance of bias. 28 U.S.C. §§ 144, 455

PDF

09-31595 | C.D. Jones & Company, Inc.

Thu, 25 Aug 2016 00:00:00 -0400

Creditor filed an objection to the claim of another creditor, arguing that the Debtor was not personally liable for the promissory note the formed the basis of the claim, as a result of a prepetition settlement agreement that rendered the note strictly in rem and not in personam . After an evidentiary hearing, the Court overruled the objection, finding that the disputed language in a settlement agreement: 1) was unambiguous, 2) the Court would not need to consider parol evidence in order to interpret the settlement agreement and 3) did not release the Debtor from its contingent liability to pay a promissory note.

Codes: 502,

Rules: 3007,

PDF

12-10462 | Matthew Bruce Hintze and Larina K. Hintze

Fri, 22 Jul 2016 00:00:00 -0400

The Chapter 7 Trustee filed notice of intent to sell the estate's membership interests in a LLC and "all claims and causes of action asserted by the Trustee in Adversary Proceeding 14-01005-KKS." Two parties objected to the sale. The Court entered an order authorizing the sale, subject to the remaining objections. The Court then entered this order finding that 1) the non-section 544 Avoidance Actions were not property of the estate, so the Trustee could not and did not sell those claims; 2) the section 544 Avoidance Actions were not property of the estate, so the Trustee could not and did not sell those claims; and 3) the TZ1 causes of action were also not property of the estate, so the Trustee could not and did not sell those claims.

PDF

15-31137 | Charlie M Hamrick

Thu, 23 Jun 2016 00:00:00 -0400

Supplemental Order 1)On Order to Show Cause (Doc. 86), 2) On Interim Order of Partial Compliance with Order to Show Cause (Doc. 114), 3) Finding Debtor, Charlie M. Hamrick, in Contempt of Court; 4) Setting Conditions for Purging Contempt, and 5) Scheduling Further Hearing

Rules: 9020,

PDF

15-31137 | Charlie M Hamrick

Thu, 23 Jun 2016 00:00:00 -0400

14-40450 | Gary Neal Wiley and Lura Shaffer Wiley

Fri, 03 Jun 2016 00:00:00 -0400

The Chapter 7 Trustee objected to the Debtors’ claim of homestead exemption on the basis that the Debtors never actually resided there. The Court ruled that in order to qualify for the homestead exemption in Florida, the owners must have an actual intention to reside on the property as their permanent place of residence, and they must actually use and occupy the residence as their permanent home. The Court found that the Debtors did not ever establish the property as their homestead, instead, the property was nothing more than a vacation home. Fla. Const. Art X § 4; 26 U.S.C. § 1031; Fla. Stat. §§ 222.01 and 222.02

Codes: ,

PDF

14-40336 | Earl Bernard Britt, Sr.

Thu, 21 Apr 2016 00:00:00 -0400

Court disallowed attorney fees for oversecured creditor where time records were vague, multiple tasks were lumped into individual entries, or attorneys spent excessive time on tasks.

Codes: 506,

PDF

15-30922 | Peter Hendrik Bos, Jr

Fri, 11 Mar 2016 00:00:00 -0500

Abstention and dismissal of an involuntary Chapter 7 case.

Codes: 303, 305,

PDF

15-10263 | Zena Bethune Baker

Fri, 29 Jan 2016 00:00:00 -0500

Debtor's family filed a Pro Se Letter/Motion. Motion stricken since document was not signed pursuant to Rule 9011, Debtor had not filed anything other than bare-bones petition, and Debtor had not paid filing fee in full.

Rules: 9011,

PDF

14-40433 | Andrea Cay Powers

Fri, 01 May 2015 00:00:00 -0400

Debtor could not deduct mortgage payments for former homestead under the means test calculation where debtor was not actually making the payments. Such payments were "phantom" payments. Case dismissed.

Codes: 707,

PDF

13-30738 | Jonathan Pascal Roberts and Venus Ayn Roberts

Wed, 11 Mar 2015 00:00:00 -0400

Ruling that the Debtors' homestead exemption should be reduced by $394,875.28, the value of non-exempt assets the Debtors liquidated within ten years pre-petition pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 522(o)(4)

Codes: 522(o),

PDF

14-01001 | Bender v. James

Wed, 11 Feb 2015 00:00:00 -0500

Creditor did not create a security interest due to use of a supergeneric description of collateral. Defenses of waiver and estoppel creditor could assert against Debtors did not impact Chapter 7 Trustee's rights under Section 544. Financing statement submitted eighteen months after security agreement could not be read to influence the interpretation of the security agreement.

Codes: 544,

PDF

12-31658 | Ken David Blackburn and Lauren Anne Blackburn

Tue, 03 Feb 2015 00:00:00 -0500

Order Sustaining IRS's Objection and Denying, As to IRS, Debtors' Motion to Determine Secured Status and to Strip Off Junior Liens. Ruling that if the IRS's lien is partially secured by the Debtors' other property, Dewsnup prohibits the strip down of the lien. The Debtors may not strip the Tax lien down in this Chapter 7 because the IRS's lien was allowed and secured

PDF

14-05005 | Holoka et al v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee f

Mon, 22 Dec 2014 00:00:00 -0500

Motion to Dismiss granted in adversary proceeding, finding no violation of the discharge injunction for bank's failure to foreclose on surrendered property.

Codes: 524,

PDF

12-30716 | James Montgomery Clark, Sr.

Mon, 28 Jul 2014 00:00:00 -0400

Trustee retained Special Counsel on a contingency fee basis but did not specifically mention 11 U.S.C. 328 in application to employ.

Codes: 328, 330,

PDF

13-40329 | Ben C. Boynton

Thu, 17 Jul 2014 00:00:00 -0400

Denying Debtor's Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization finding that the Plan did not comply with the requirements under section 1129(a)-(b).

Codes: 1129(a), 1129(b),

13-30420 | Franklin Harold Watson and Debbie Webb Watson

Sat, 24 May 2014 00:00:00 -0400

Order granting an extension of time for a creditor to file its 727 complaint where the attorneys were active and diligent in their discovery efforts and the extension would not burden efficient court administration and denying creditor's request for an extension of time to file a non-dischargeability complaint pursuant to 523 where the creditor had sufficient knowledge well before the Debtors filed bankruptcy that the creditor had a potential claim for aiding and abetting fraudulent transfers.

Codes: 727, 523, 4004(b),

PDF

12-31492 | Carol A. Kain

Fri, 14 Feb 2014 00:00:00 -0500

Homestead Exemption: Debtor residing in a building zoned commercial that also housed her quasi-medical practice can claim portion used as residence as exempt

PDF

08-50066 | Shores of Panama, Inc.

Fri, 20 Dec 2013 00:00:00 -0500

In March of 2009 the bankruptcy court authorized the debtors sale of certain assets free and clear of liens and encumbrances. The sale closed shortly thereafter. On October 11, 2013, a party that had been noticed of the sale filed a motion pursuant to Rule 60(b) for relief from that order on the basis that a creditor had committed a fraud on the court, and that the order was void.

Codes: 60(c)(1),

Rules: 60(b),

PDF

13-40282 | Joseph P. Manausa

Thu, 12 Dec 2013 00:00:00 -0500

Motion for extension of time to file an objection to discharge granted because debtor did not list proper address for creditor in Schedules or Matrix; listed creditors address as C/O prior state court counsel.

Rules: 1007(a), 4007(a), 9006(b)(3),

PDF

11-50287 | Hoyt Willard Cook, Jr. and Glenda Ann Cook

Mon, 02 Dec 2013 00:00:00 -0500

Default judgment denying Debtors' discharge did not warrant denying Debtors' homestead exemption under res judicata. Rule 8(b)(6) does not apply to contested matters; even if it did, matters deemed admitted in one proceeding did not warrant deeming those facts admitted in a separate proceeding. Use of unexpected tax refund to purchase an exempt homestead did not warrant denial of homestead exemption under Section 522(o): the Debtors did not hold the tax refund for a long time and had been looking for some time to purchase a home. Failure to list tax refund on SOFA did not compel a different result. Circumstantial evidence of badges of fraud did not outweigh actual evidence of Debtors' genuine intent to buy a permanent home.

Codes: 522,

Rules: 9014,

PDF

09-41174 | William Arthur Thomas, III

Thu, 08 Aug 2013 00:00:00 -0400

Trustee filed a Motion to Surcharge the Debtor’s Exempt Asset. The Trustee was not able to prove that exceptional circumstances exist that would warrant a surcharge on the Debtor’s exempt asset.

Codes: 541, 105, 521, 522,

PDF

12-04014 | Suntrust Bank v. Mitchell, Jr. et al

Mon, 15 Jul 2013 00:00:00 -0400

Motion for Summary Judgment granted in part and debtors' discharge denied for gross inadequacies in Schedules and SOFA under 727(a)(4)(A) but denied as to 727(a)(2) and (a)(5).

Codes: 727(a)(2), 727(a)(4), 727(a)(5),

PDF

13-10052 | David F. Petrano and Mary Katherine Day-Petrano

Tue, 16 Apr 2013 00:00:00 -0400

Order on Court's sua sponte Order to Show Cause which directed the debtors to appear and show cause why a guardian ad litem should not be appointed for the co-debtor. Court stayed Chapter 12 case to give debtors an opportunity to seek an adjudication of debtor's competence from a court with jurisdiction over incompetency and guardianship.

Rules: 1004.1, 1016,

PDF

12-5005 | Dodson v. Earnest

Mon, 08 Apr 2013 00:00:00 -0400

Debtor's obligation, both past and continuing, to pay half of the mortgage payments on the marital home under a final judgment of dissolution of marriage was non-dischargeable under 523(a)(5) as being in the nature of alimony, maintenance or support.

Codes: 523(a)(5), 523(a)(15), 1328,

PDF

12-31492 | Carol A. Kain

Tue, 02 Apr 2013 00:00:00 -0400

Rule 9006(f) did not apply to extend a deadline that the Chapter 7 Trustee established for receipt of competing bids for assets being sold by the Trustee.

Rules: 9006(f),

PDF

12-40654 | Darnell Reginald Brooks

Wed, 30 Jan 2013 00:00:00 -0500

Credit union's motion for relief from stay granted for setoff of funds.

Codes: 362,

PDF

11-50571 | Christopher Cody Shiver

Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:00:00 -0500

Language of a confirmed Chapter 13 plan expressly provided that creditor's collateral would be surrendered and that creditor would be given 90 days from the confirmation date to file any unsecured deficiency claim. Debtor subsequently objected to claim that was filed by creditor within the 90-day period, asserting that it was not timely filed. The Court held that under the specific facts of this case, the claim was timely filed. 484 B.R. 468

Codes: 502, 1327,

Rules: 3002, 9006,

PDF

12-5025 | Atkinson v. Green Tree Servicing LLC

Tue, 18 Dec 2012 00:00:00 -0500

Defendant filed motion to dismiss in adversary proceeding on the basis that a request for damages and order for contempt for alleged violations of the discharge injunction should be brought by motion rather than by adversary proceeding. Court denied motion to dismiss finding that redress of violations of the discharge injunction may be brought by adversary proceeding.

Codes: 524, 105,

Rules: 9014, 9020,

PDF

10-30741 | Pointe One, LLC

Fri, 16 Nov 2012 00:00:00 -0500

Creditor sought a super priority administrative claim under 507(b) for alleged failure of adequate protection payments during Chapter 11 single asset real estate case. Issue was whether payments that were made to Creditor under 362(d)(3) constituted "adequate protection." Court found that payments made under 362(d)(3) do not constitute adequate protection, but rather payments designed to compensate the Creditor for the time value of its debt investment. Application for an administrative claim denied.

Codes: 507(b),

PDF

09-31595 | C.D. Jones & Company, Inc.

Mon, 05 Nov 2012 00:00:00 -0500

Chapter 7 trustee filed motion to compel disclosure, seeking an order compelling creditors, who filed state-court lawsuit against third parties seeking imposition of equitable lien on certain assets transferred by debtor to third party and/or into trusts, to fully disclose any knowledge they had concerning the pending litigation, as well as a motion for determination that the lawsuit was an asset of the estate. Court held that: 1) the state court action was an asset of the estate; 2) the 546(a) deadline was not a jurisdictional bar to the Trustee to assert a fraudulent conveyance claim; and 3)motion to compel disclosure was reasonable under the facts of the case. 482 B.R. 449

Codes: 541, 544, 546(a), 704,

PDF