You are here

Opinions

United States Courts Opinions

United States Courts Opinions (USCOURTS) collection is a collaborative effort between the U.S. Government Publishing Office (GPO) and the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) to provide public access to opinions from selected United States appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts.

The District of Nebraska offers a database of opinions for the years 1997 to current, listed by year and judge. For a more detailed search, enter the keyword or case number in the search box above.

Christina D'Saachs v. Jayme Davis Sell & Andra Lynne Sell (In re Sell), Ch. 7, BK25-80501-BSK, A25-8010-BSK (June 2, 2026) 06/02/2026
Judge Brian S. Kruse

The bankruptcy court excepted part of a judgment debt from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A).

The parties met in Arizona and dated briefly before the defendant moved back to Nebraska. The parties have differing perspectives on whether they were in a romantic relationship or merely a friendship after the defendant’s relocation, but the plaintiff agreed to lend money to the defendant to help him pay off some debts. The plaintiff drafted an agreement to loan the defendant up to $55,000, and he agreed to its terms. The plaintiff believed she would receive his truck title as collateral as soon as the truck was paid off. The parties soon revised the loan agreement to include additional debt of approximately $6,750. The defendant made payments to the plaintiff until he was laid off from his job less than two months later.

After signing the revised loan agreement and before losing his job – and unbeknownst to the plaintiff – the defendant continued to borrow from commercial lenders. He made regular monthly payments on those loans even after the job loss, although he made no serious efforts to find another job. He also withdrew funds from the plaintiff’s bank account without asking her, but when she learned about it, he told her he would pay back those withdrawals in three weeks. He subsequently defaulted on his truck loan, and the plaintiff lent him the funds to prevent repossession, reasoning that he needed the truck in order to work and earn money with which to repay her. The plaintiff also drew up a second revised loan agreement to include the bank account withdrawals and the truck payment, bringing the loan amount to $71,381. The defendant did not sign the agreement but agreed to them via text message.

When the plaintiff finally shut off the funding stream and refused to loan the defendant any more money, he stopped communicating with her. The plaintiff filed a collection action in the County Court of Dodge County, Nebraska, on August 20, 2024. She obtained a judgment and began garnishing the defendant. The defendant filed bankruptcy shortly thereafter.

The plaintiff filed this adversary proceeding to except the judgment debt from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A) for money obtained through fraud, false pretenses, or false representations. Much of the plaintiff’s evidence consisted of print-outs of the text messages she and the defendant exchanged. However, the court found that “[t]he defendant’s written statements about his credit score, about the extent, existence, or concealment of his other debts, about his income, and about his general ability to repay are not actionable as fraud in this case as pled because they concern his financial condition.” Written statements concerning a debtor’s financial condition fall under § 523(a)(2)(B), and §§ 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(2)(B) are mutually exclusive. Here, the plaintiff did not plead a claim under § 523(a)(2)(B).

The court evaluated the allegations of fraud separately for each loan agreement. For the original loan agreement, the plaintiff alleged the defendant falsely represented that he (1) would provide his truck as collateral for the loan; (2) would repay the loan; and (3) wanted to use the loan to become debt-free. The court found that the representation about collateral was not false because the terms of the agreement stated the defendant would sign over the truck “as soon as it was paid off.” In fact, the truck was never paid off. It was totaled in an accident, so the obligation to sign over the title was never triggered. The court also found the defendant’s statements about intending to become debt-free were not actionable under § 523(a)(2)(A) because those texts concern the defendant’s financial condition. Even if the statements were actionable, they do not establish fraud because debt-free status was the defendant’s aspiration, not a factual representation that he would never again be in debt. As to the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant falsely stated he would repay her, the court examined the timing of the defendant’s representations. The defendant demonstrated an intent to repay the original loan when it was made by making several monthly payments on it.

Likewise, with the first revised agreement, the defendant was employed and making payments when he signed it, which indicates he intended to repay the loan. That revised agreement documented amounts that had already been lent to the defendant, so the causation element of § 523(a)(2)(A) was not met. In other words, the money was not “obtained by” fraud at that point.

The second revised loan agreement covered multiple advances, so the court analyzed each. The court ruled that the defendant’s withdrawals from the plaintiff’s bank account and the advance to pay the truck loan were obtained by false pretenses and the false representation that the defendant intended to repay her. The evidence that he was continuing to pay his commercial lenders even after he stopped paying the plaintiff, and his statement that he would restore the bank withdrawals “in 3 weeks” when he had no means to do so, demonstrated his fraudulent intent. As a result, the court excepted the principal amount of $9,629 from discharge.

Hansen-Mueller Co., Ch. 11, BK25-81226-TLS (May 4, 2026) 05/04/2026
Judge Thomas L. Saladino

In this grain elevator bankruptcy case, a number of farmers who delivered grain to the debtor pre-petition but were not paid for it filed claims under § 557 to have their rights determined as to grain or grain proceeds held by the debtor. Some of the claimants hold statutory liens under state laws that are intended to protect producers in such situations, but not all of these laws provide the same levels of protection. The largest group of claimants relied on a Texas statute providing a super-priority lien to producers who sell crops to a warehouse or contract purchaser that attaches upon delivery, but did not perfect those liens by timely filing U.C.C. statements in Nebraska. Some of the claimants raised other arguments, including the third-party security interests of their lenders, notices given under § 546(b), equitable subordination, and reclamation under U.C.C. § 2-702. The reclamation claims may proceed if the claimants can provide proof that the debtor made a written misrepresentation of solvency to them within three months before the grain was delivered. Those claimants raising the issue of equitable subordination may file an adversary proceeding to pursue it. The rest of the claims were disallowed.

Michael Watson, Ch. 7, BK25-80538-BSK (Apr. 8, 2026) 04/09/2026
Judge Brian S. Kruse

The bankruptcy court reiterated that a judgment lien on the debtor’s 50% interest in his house is fully avoided, but the judgment creditor may go to state court for a determination of the extent of the debtor’s interest vis-à-vis his former wife’s interest in the property, which was their marital home.

The judgment creditor is unlikely to obtain the result he desires, however, because if the debtor’s interest is determined to be 50% or less, the judgment lien has been fully avoided and the creditor is bound by the discharge injunction in § 524. If the debtor’s interest exceeds 50%, any action by the creditor concerning the excess is stayed under § 362 and the portion over 50% is property of the bankruptcy estate to be administered by the trustee, which may also cause the debtor to amend his assets and exemptions and perhaps seek additional lien avoidance.

Richard N. Berkshire, Ch. 11, BK25-80366-BSK (Mar. 31, 2026) 03/31/2026
Judge Brian S. Kruse

The court, after a trial, sanctioned the debtor for violating the automatic stay and the court’s turnover orders. The court found the debtor and his son repeatedly interfered with the trustee’s possession of certain real property, the debtor caused post-petition liens to be filed against the real estate, and the debtor withdrew IRA funds outside the scope of a court order authorizing certain withdrawals.

The court found “[t]here is no objectively reasonable basis to conclude the debtor’s conduct was lawful under the automatic stay or the turnover order. The debtor, who is an attorney, admitted he authorized his son to occupy the property after the stay was in effect and after the turnover order was entered. This authorization is an act by the debtor to obtain possession or control of property of the estate, violating both 11 U.S.C. § 362 and the turnover order.” The court further ruled the debtor violated the automatic stay by causing liens to be filed against the estate.

The trustee sought a finding of contempt for the stay violations, and damages and punitive damages under § 362(k). However, the court ruled that only an individual, not a trustee acting on behalf of the bankruptcy estate, can recover damages for willful stay violations. The court also ruled that a debtor cannot be held in contempt for violating the automatic stay because contempt is a remedy for disobeying court orders, not statutes.

The court sanctioned the debtor, ruling “[t]he debtor not only violated the automatic stay and the court’s turnover order, he also damaged the bankruptcy estate through delay and obstruction. Sanctions are necessary and appropriate under § 105(a) and the authority recognized in Just Brakes to remedy the debtor’s conduct regarding possession of the Omaha property and the liens filed against the Omaha property.” The trustee was awarded damages in the amount of the costs to obtain possession of and secure the real property, and the attorney fees necessary to obtain possession of the property, investigate the unauthorized liens, and bring the motion for sanctions. The court did not award damages for the IRA withdrawals “because the court’s orders created some ambiguity as to the propriety of withdrawals and because the trustee did not establish damage.”

Heartland Bank v. Laurie Ann Spilker (In re Spilker), Ch. 13, BK25-41113-TLS, A26-4003-TLS (Mar. 26, 2026) 03/27/2026
Judge Thomas L. Saladino

The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment to the bank holding a perfected first-priority security interest in the proceeds of grain collateral. The debtor withheld three checks for grain sold, refusing to endorse them and turn them over to the bank. Another creditor with a fertilizer/ag chemical lien was also a defendant in this case because it was a named payee on the checks. The court found the bank’s prior perfected security interest to be paramount, so all the defendants were ordered to endorse the checks and turn them over to the bank.

Christina D'Saachs v. Jayme Davis Sell & Andra Lynne Sell (In re Sell), Ch. 7, BK25-80501-BSK, A25-8010-BSK (Mar. 17, 2026) 03/17/2026
Judge Brian S. Kruse

The court denied the debtor-defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding that factual issues as to intent require a trial.

The plaintiff lent money to the debtor to pay off existing debt, and the parties signed a loan agreement under which the debtor made some payments. The debtor continued to incur debt, from other lenders and by withdrawing money from the plaintiff’s account, without making much progress on repaying the plaintiff. In 2024, the plaintiff sued the debtor, obtaining a judgment and garnishment order. The debtor began exploring bankruptcy options and asked the plaintiff to release the garnishment. The parties corresponded, with the plaintiff asking for payment assurances and the debtor repeatedly stating the plaintiff would be repaid through the bankruptcy case.

The debtor and his wife filed their Chapter 7 petition in 2025, and the plaintiff filed this adversary proceeding to except the judgment debt from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A) for fraud and to deny the debtors a discharge under § 727(a)(4)(A) for making a false oath or account by failing to include certain monthly rental assistance in their schedules, and by making inaccurate pre-petition statements about the dischargeability of the plaintiff’s claim.

The debtors moved for summary judgment on both claims, but the court denied the motion because the debtor’s intent is a genuine issue of material fact. On the § 523(a)(2)(A) claim, the court said the debtor’s credibility is an important aspect of ascertaining intent: “Did Mr. Sell intend to repay the plaintiff? Was Mr. Sell ‘using’ the plaintiff in a scheme to get money? These unresolved issues preclude summary judgment because ‘[a] material promise to perform in the future made with the intent to defraud and without the intent to perform . . . constitutes actionable fraud.’”

Likewise, on the §727(a)(4) claim, the court, after discounting the weight of the debtor’s inaccurate statements about bankruptcy’s effect on his debt to the plaintiff, said a trial will be necessary to determine the debtors’ intent regarding the initial failure to disclose the rental assistance: “The debtors’ intent is material and disputed. Given the potential cumulative effect of the facts in evidence, the debtors’ intent regarding the omission of the rental assistance comes down to credibility. On this record, it is not established for purposes of summary judgment.”

Richard N. Berkshire, Ch. 7, BK25-80366 (Mar. 12, 2026) 03/12/2026
Judge Brian S. Kruse

The bankruptcy court granted the Chapter 7 trustee’s motion to sell residential real estate over the objection of the debtor (who lacked standing) and several holders of construction liens on the property.

While the mortgage-holder consented to the sale, a judgment lien creditor neither consented nor objected. The court noted, first, failure to object implies consent, and second, a §363 sale can occur if the non-consenting entity’s interest is in bona fide dispute. Here, the debtor is vigorously disputing the validity of the underlying judgment, so the creditor’s interest is in bona fide dispute. Even if the creditor’s implied consent is insufficient under § 362(f)(2), the sale is independently authorized under § 363(f)(4).

Likewise, the subcontractors’ interests are also objectively subject to a bona fide dispute because the debtor was not authorized to incur debt to complete construction of the house. Moreover, the post-petition filing of the construction liens violated the automatic stay, which may render them void or voidable.

The court also ruled that, contrary to the assertion of one of the creditors, there is indeed a benefit to the estate from the sale because the mortgage holder has agreed to a carve-out for unsecured creditors and because certain administrative expenses can be surcharged against the sale proceeds under § 506(c).

Finally, the court addressed the debtor’s argument that the Chapter 7 trustee is serving without a sufficient bond. The U.S. Trustee is responsible for determining the amount and sufficiency of a case trustee’s bond under §322(b) and the current bond is satisfactory to the U.S. Trustee. The court has little tolerance for the debtor’s “misguided and ill-conceived” efforts to impede the trustee and avoid liquidation of estate assets.

Benjamin & Brittany Thompson, Ch. 13, BK25-41293-BSK (Mar. 10, 2026) 03/10/2026
Judge Brian S. Kruse

The bankruptcy court denied the debtors’ motion for turnover of funds from a pre-petition garnishment because the garnishment must first be avoided through an adversary proceeding. The court also denied the debtors’ request for sanctions under §362(k) for willful violation of the automatic stay for not releasing the garnishment upon learning of the bankruptcy case. The court noted that debtors and creditors share responsibility for getting garnishments released. Here, the court found it to be a failure of the parties to communicate about stopping the garnishment rather than a willful violation.

In re EAD Constructors, Inc., Ch. 11, BK25-81134-BSK (Mar. 5, 2026) 03/05/2026
Judge Brian S. Kruse

The bankruptcy court granted relief from the automatic stay to permit arbitration to continue.

The movant is an entity that had hired the debtor for engineering, procurement, and construction services. The movant alleged mismanagement and contract breaches by the debtor and began arbitration proceedings in 2023. Days before the arbitration hearing was to begin, the debtor filed its Chapter 11 bankruptcy case.

The court noted a strong federal policy favoring arbitration and enforcement of arbitration clauses in contracts, and examined the intersection of the enforcement of such clauses with the objectives of the Bankruptcy Code such as centralized resolution of purely bankruptcy issues, protecting parties from piecemeal litigation, and the clear power of a bankruptcy court to enforce its own orders. The court found that allowing arbitration to continue would not undermine or conflict with the Code’s objectives because: (1) no other parties in interest objected to the motion for relief or expressed concern about the movant’s claim not being decided in a public proceeding; (2) while the debtor’s appeal rights are limited in arbitration, that is the process to which the parties agreed; and (3) although piecemeal litigation is a risk, that risk exists whether the claims are resolved in arbitration or in state or federal court.  

The court then found cause for granting stay relief under § 362(d)(1), given that judicial economy and trial readiness are two factors that heavily favor arbitration. The burdens to the bankruptcy estate – such as cost of defense and the erosion of its wasting indemnity insurance coverage – are not insignificant but would exist regardless of where the claim is decided, so that factor also favors granting relief to arbitrate. The court added that relief was granted only to obtain a final arbitration award, but not to enforce any such award absent further order of the court.

Richard N. Berkshire, Ch. 7, BK25-80366-BSK (Mar. 4, 2026) 03/04/2026
Judge Brian S. Kruse

The bankruptcy court granted in part the United States Trustee’s motion to examine the fees of debtor’s counsel. The court ordered full disgorgement of all post-petition fees paid, along with any pre-petition retainers.

The court ordered debtor’s counsel to disgorge all post-petition fees received in the Chapter 11 case because they were not authorized or approved. Counsel argued that he didn’t need court approval because he was paid from the proceeds of an exempt IRA, but the court pointed out those funds became property of the estate when they were withdrawn and deposited into the debtor’s checking account. The court also ruled the fees were unreasonable because the amount of attorney’s fees paid exceeded the reasonable value of the services provided. The court found that counsel “assisted the debtor in making incomplete and inaccurate filings, assisted the debtor in filing a clearly unconfirmable and wholly self-serving Chapter 11 plan, stonewalled the U.S. Trustee, and was legal counsel while the debtor dissipated the bankruptcy estate. Moreover, the bankruptcy was ill-conceived given the debtor’s breach of fiduciary duties, which necessitated the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee. [Counsel]’s conduct cost the estate more than any value he provided.”

The U.S. Trustee also challenged pre-petition payments made to debtor’s counsel, but the court denied the request to disgorge those funds because the trustee did not make a prima facie showing that the payments were “in contemplation of bankruptcy” under § 329, so the issues of disclosure and reasonableness under § 329 did not arise.

Finally, because the billing records submitted by debtor’s counsel appeared to be unreliable, at best, and possibly intentionally false, the court scheduled a show-cause hearing to determine whether counsel should be permitted to continue practicing in bankruptcy court. See Fil. No. 533.

Pages