In priority dispute between the holder of a perfected first-priority blanket lien and a mechanic with a statutory artisan's lien, the holder of the blanket lien prevails because the mechanic did not maintain continuous possession of the collateral.
You are here
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.
Issues of non-dischargeability under § 523(a)(6) for debtor's alleged conversion of assets and equitable subordination of the bank's lien under § 510(c) for its alleged conduct require factual findings and cannot be decided on summary judgment.
The court denied the student loan creditor's motion for summary judgment because the discharge of student loans is a fact-intensive inquiry in which a debtor must prove that reasonable future financial resources will not be enough to repay the debt.
The debtor was alleged to have incurred a non-dischargeable debt for luxury goods and services shortly before filing bankruptcy. She did not respond to discovery, so each element of the case was deemed admitted and judgment was entered against her.
The debtor's objection to a claim was granted and the claim was disallowed because the documentary evidence overwhelmingly indicated the promissory notes at issue were not the obligation of the debtor, but rather of the debtor's general partner.
The court granted the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss an amended complaint in intervention for lack of standing. The debtor, Earl Brice Equipment, leased heavy equipment to a related company, M & S Grading, that also was in bankruptcy. During the pendency of the bankruptcy cases, M & S made adequate protection payments to creditors holding liens on the equipment of Earl Brice Equipment. Eventually, both debtors ceased operations and the equipment was sold. One of the lienholders filed this adversary proceeding to determine the extent and validity of competing liens in the proceeds.
The intervenors were the union benefit plans of M & S employees (“the Plans”). The Plans pursued claims in the M & S case for benefit plan contributions that were withheld from employees’ paychecks but not delivered to the Plans. The Plans intervened in the adversary proceeding and claimed an interest in the proceeds of the equipment sale on the theory that a statutory trust was created for the benefit of the M & S employees and the Plans when M & S withheld funds from the employees’ paychecks.
The court ruled the intervenors lacked legal standing in the adversary because they had not shown “a recognized interest in the subject matter of the litigation that might be impaired by the disposition of the case and will not be adequately protected by the existing parties.” An economic stake was not enough to constitute a legally protectable interest. In addition, the intervenors did not establish a nexus between the funds withheld by M & S and the proceeds in which the Plans were claiming an interest.
A lender filed a motion for summary judgment to except a debt from discharge under § 523(a)(6) because the debtors allegedly converted collateral and proceeds of collateral by selling the collateral and depositing the proceeds into their personal account. The court denied the motion because the debtors’ intent is a material fact when willfulness and maliciousness are elements of the cause of action, and is difficult to establish on summary judgment.
The creditor obtained judgment liens on the debtor's real property within 90 days propr to the petition date. Those liens were transfers on account of an antecedent debt made while the debtor was insolvent, so they were avoidable as preferences.
The court denied summary judgment in a case to force dissolution of the debtor for breach of fiduciary duty to its partners because factual questions remained about the debtor's alleged misconduct. Also, the plaintiff could move to appoint a trustee.
Genuine issues of material fact exist on avoidable preference and fraudulent transfer including existence of antecedent debt, whether debt restructure is a legitimate supervening purpose and whether reasonably equivalent value was received.