You are here


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.

Subscribe to our opinions RSS feed District of Nebraska RSS Feed

  • 09/26/2018
    Richard D. Myers, Chap. 7 Trustee v. Cinch Cattle Co. (In re Charles Leonard & Margaret Leonard), Ch. 7, BK15-82016, A17-8026 (Sept. 26, 2018) 09/26/2018

    The court granted summary judgment against one defendant in favor of the Chapter 7 trustee, permitting him to recover unauthorized post-petition transfers made by the debtor. The evidence established (1) the funds were property of the bankruptcy estate; (2) the property was transferred; (3) the transfer was made post-petition; and (4) the transfer was not authorized by the Bankruptcy Code or the bankruptcy court. The court declined to enter summary judgment as to the remaining defendants because the evidence did not support an alter ego theory.

  • 09/26/2018
    Richard D. Myers, Chap. 7 Trustee v. Brian Witt (In re Charles Leonard & Margaret Leonard), Ch. 7, BK15-82016, A17-8019 (Sept. 26, 2018) 09/26/2018

    The court denied summary judgment in a preference action after determining that the affirmative defenses of contemporaneous exchange for new value, transfers in the ordinary course of business, and new value require factual findings as to the parties’ intent.

  • 08/20/2018
    Joseph Allan Hartley & Rachel Kay Hartley, Ch. 7, BK15-81898 (Aug. 20, 2018) 08/20/2018

    An unsecured creditor in a Chapter 7 case may include post-petition attorneys’ fees in its proof of claim, but it may not recover post-petition interest.

  • 06/05/2018
    Shane Anthony Morris & Donna Ann Morris v. The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co. (In re Morris), Ch. 13, BK17-81698, A18-8002 (June 5, 2018) 06/05/2018

    The court granted summary judgment to the debtors, ordering that a wholly unsecured junior lien on the debtors’ residential real estate may be avoided after the debtors complete Chapter 13 plan payments.

  • 05/30/2018
    Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Servs. v. N. Curtis Dunlop (In re Dunlop), Ch. 7, BK16-41913, A17-4009 (May 30, 2018) 05/30/2018

    The debtor and the Nebraska Department of Health & Human Services had entered into a pre-petition agreement settling a lawsuit under the False Medicaid Claims Act, and the debtor had paid a portion of the settlement amount. In the debtor’s bankruptcy, the Department filed a complaint to determine the dischargeability of the balance of the settlement amount under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

    In cross-motions for summary judgment, the debtor conceded the non-dischargeability of the balance owed. The dispute was whether the Department was entitled to treble damages under its complaint in the state court litigation.

    The bankruptcy court determined the settlement agreement was clear as to the parties’ rights and remedies upon a payment default – entry of a judgment for the balance due under the agreement. The evidence did not support the Department’s claim for additional damages under the complaint, particularly since the Department had agreed to dismiss the state court complaint with prejudice as part of the settlement.

  • 04/17/2018
    Wade Brandon Hill & Kimberly Dawn Hill, Ch. 7, BK16-41396 (Apr. 17, 2018) 04/17/2018

    An agricultural production input supplier filed a financing statement to perfect its statutory lien against the debtors’ crops and crop proceeds, but the financing statement did not contain the information required by the Nebraska agricultural production inputs lien statutes, so the lien was unperfected. Under the Uniform Commercial Code’s priority rules, a perfected security interest has priority over a conflicting unperfected agricultural lien, so a lender’s prior perfected security interest took priority in the available proceeds.

  • 04/06/2018
    JN Medical Corp. v. Auro Vaccines, LLC (In re JN Medical Corp.), Ch. 11, BK17-80174, A17-8016 (Apr. 6, 2018) 04/06/2018

    The court refers the adversary proceeding to federal district court because the complaint alleges state-law non-core claims over which the bankruptcy court does not have authority to enter a final judgment and because the defendant has requested a jury trial, which will not occur in bankruptcy court.

  • 04/02/2018
    Thomas Pinkelman v. Stacey L. Renner (In re Renner), Ch. 7, BK17-40464, A17-4040 (Apr. 2, 2018) 04/02/2018

    After a trial on a complaint by a creditor alleging non-dischargeability of a debt under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) arising from the financial problems of an LLC in which the creditor and the debtor were members, the court ruled in the debtor’s favor. There was no evidence of a technical or express trust as required by § 523(a)(4), nor did the evidence show that the debtor acted in bad faith or with the intent to cause the creditor harm.

  • 03/08/2018
    W. Terminal Transp., L.L.C. v. Great W. Enter., Inc. (In re Happy Jack's Petroleum, Inc.), Ch. 7, BK16-41395, A17-4046 (Mar. 8, 2018) 03/08/2018

    This adversary complaint was filed to object to the amount, validity, and extent of a secured claim held by an assignee of the original lender. On summary judgment, the plaintiff argued that one of the promissory notes at issue is unsecured and unenforceable because no agreements securing that note had been assigned to the claimant. The assignee argued that all of the loans made to the debtors were cross-collateralized, so it holds a beneficial security interest in instruments securing other loans even though no formal assignment of those security interests was made. The court denied summary judgment, holding that the original lender, which still holds the security interests in which the assignee is also claiming an interest, is a necessary party to the litigation.

  • 03/08/2018
    Hook Cattle & Farms, L.L.C., Ch. 12, BK17-40497 (Mar. 8, 2018) 03/08/2018

    The court denied confirmation of a Chapter 12 plan because the plan proposed to treat one partially secured creditor as fully secured, which unfairly discriminated against general unsecured creditors.

    Deere & Company holds a fully secured claim and an unsecured claim. To settle Deere’s motion for relief, the debtor agreed, inter alia, to provide for full payment of the entire debt in the plan, and the court approved that stipulation. After the plan was filed, an unsecured creditor objected to confirmation. The court agreed with the objecting party that the treatment of Deere’s claim foundered on the four-part unfair-discrimination test. The court also clarified that approval of the parties’ stipulation simply approved the agreement between Deere and the debtor and did not excuse the debtor’s obligation to comply with § 1222.