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

  • 12/23/2016
    Omaha Federal Credit Union v. Monroe Love, Jr. (In re Love), Ch. 7, BK16-40874, A16-4025 (December 23, 2016) 12/23/2016

    The court entered a default judgment excepting a debt from discharge in an adversary proceeding where the debtor was served with process but did not respond. The complaint requested relief under both § 523 and § 727, but the motion for default judgment did not include a prayer for denial of discharge under § 727, so that portion of the motion was denied.

  • 12/16/2016
    Richard D. Myers, Successor Trustee v. Mohsen Niroomand-Rad (In re Niroomand-Rad), Ch. 7, BK14-81784, A16-8050 (Dec. 16, 2016) 12/16/2016

    On a motion by non-debtor defendants to withdraw the reference of this adversary proceeding, the bankruptcy court recommended to the district court that the motion be denied. The trustee alleges in this lawsuit that the debtor fraudulently transferred property of the estate to entities ostensibly owned by his relatives. The trustee seeks a finding that the non-debtor defendants are alter egos of the debtor and are subject to liability for the debtor’s debts; that the estates of the non-debtors should be substantively consolidated with the debtor’s estate; that certain contract benefits received by the non-debtors are property of the estate and should be turned over to the trustee; that fraudulent transfers should be avoided and recovered; and that the defendants should provide an accounting. Some of these claims are non-core matters over which the bankruptcy court lacks authority to enter final judgment. However, others are core proceedings, and the parties as well as judicial efficiency would be served by leaving the adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy court.

  • 12/02/2016
    Kelley Lea Porter v. First Nat'l Bank of Omaha (In re Porter), Ch. 13, BK15-81391, A16-8053 (Dec. 2, 2016) 12/02/2016

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

  • 11/21/2016
    Jennifer J. Lashley v. Eric J. Lashley (In re Eric J. Lashley), Ch. 7, BK16-40825, A16-4027-SKH (Nov. 21, 2016) 11/21/2016

    The court denied the debtor’s motion to dismiss the creditor’s pro se complaint concerning discharge and dischargeability on the basis of timeliness. The creditor’s causes of action under 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(5) and (a)(15) could be brought at anytime and were not subject to a deadline. The creditor’s §§ 727(a)(2) and (a)(5) allegations, while filed after the Rule 4004 deadline for objecting to discharge, were subject to an extension of time because the complaint suggested “the conduct justifying a denial of discharge has not yet occurred or [the creditor] has not yet learned of sufficient facts to support such a claim.”

  • 11/21/2016
    Elkhorn Crossing, LLC, Ch. 12, BK16-80782 (Nov. 21, 2016) 11/21/2016

    The court denied confirmation of the debtor’s Chapter 12 plan and offered an opportunity to file an amended plan. The secured lender had objected to the reasonableness of the repayment terms proposed by the debtor for its three promissory notes. After performing a Till analysis, the court said that while the debtor’s proposed repayment schedule for its land loan with an original term of 16 years was not unreasonable, the debtor should include periodic adjustments of the interest rate over the repayment term in order to provide the creditor with the present value of its claim. Likewise, the debtor had not provided sufficient information for the court to determine whether the proposed 15-year repayment term for much shorter-term operating and term loans was appropriate under the circumstances of the case. Finally, live testimony would probably be necessary to make a feasibility determination.

  • 10/26/2016
    Jesse James Henson, Sr., & Kasey Jo Henson v. Bank of America, N.A. (In re Henson), Ch. 13, BK13-80182, A16-8027 (Oct. 26, 2016) 10/26/2016

    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.

  • 09/27/2016
    Kelley Lea Porter v. First Nat'l Bank of Omaha (In re Porter), Ch. 13, BK15-81391, A16-8029 (Sept. 27, 2016) 09/27/2016

    The court denied the debtor’s motion for summary judgment against a junior lienholder on the debtor’s home because the debtor did not properly serve the creditor.

  • 09/27/2016
    Laura Clarke v. Ditech Fin'l, LLC (In re Clarke), Ch. 13, BK15-81490, A16-8030 (Sept. 27, 2016) 09/27/2016

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

  • 09/16/2016
    Ronald P. Hasley & Vicki A. Hasley v. Tyler B. Irons (In re Irons), Ch. 7, BK15-40876, A15-4051 (Sept. 16, 2016) 09/16/2016

    The court denied summary judgment on dischargeability under §§ 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(4) of a debt that was based on a state court judgment. That judgment was a summary judgment on a breach of contract issue, so the elements of fraud or defalcation had not been established. The motion in state court had not been defended by the debtor, possibly due to counsel’s negligence, so collateral estoppel may not be applicable. In sum, genuine issues of material fact exist as to dischargeability, so the matter should be tried.

  • 07/28/2016
    In re Sandpoint Cattle Company, LLC, Ch. 11, BK13-40219-SKH (July 28, 2016) 07/28/2016

    The court allowed in part the final application for compensation for the law firm representing a Chapter 11 debtor. The court disallowed the portion of the requested fees related to the abandonment of assets because the court previously ruled that the firm violated the standard of care concerning its representation of the debtor in this regard. The firm also was ordered to disgorge $400,000 in fees  due to its “blatant disregard of the Bankruptcy Code and the rules” in misrepresenting to the court its compensation arrangements with and payments from third parties.