The bankruptcy court recommended to the district court that it deny the debtor-defendant’s motion to withdraw the reference of the bankruptcy case and adversary proceeding because the motion was unfounded. The issues raised in the adversary proceeding arise under Title 11 and are clearly within the bankruptcy court’s constitutional authority to adjudicate. The court further recommended the imposition of monetary sanctions under Rule 9011 against counsel for the debtor-defendant for repeatedly filing frivolous pleadings that were not well-grounded in fact, warranted by existing law, or based on a good-faith argument.

The court entered summary judgment for the bankruptcy trustee, finding pre-petition payments made to the creditor to be preferential transfers. The creditor placed cattle at the debtor’s feedlot to be fed out, and was to be paid after the cattle were sold and an amount deducted by the debtor for feed costs. The sale proceeds were deposited into the debtor's general operating account, and the debtor made payments to the creditor and others out of that account. Because the creditor’s funds were not segregated, he did not have a bailment, nor was a constructive trust warranted.

The bankruptcy court found that a debtor’s pre-petition disclaimer of an inheritance did not relate back to the date of death to prevent the property from becoming part of the bankruptcy estate. Instead, the disclaimer constituted a transfer and a trial was necessary to determine whether the transfer was made with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors, which would warrant a denial of discharge.

The court entered summary judgment for the plaintiff on a § 523(a)(2)(A) cause of action because the plaintiff established a prima facie case in its motion and supporting materials. The debtor’s response did not comply with the local procedural rule for opposing a motion for summary judgment, so the record did not demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact for trial.