You are here

Judge Thomas L. Saladino

Emily J. Beans v. Dustin R. Lindgren (In re Lindgren), Ch. 7, BK23-40236-TLS, A23-4017-TLS (Oct. 30, 2023)

The court granted the plaintiff’s motion for default judgment, and found that the state court judgment in her favor on claims for relief including invasion of her right to privacy was sufficient to support a finding that the judgment debt was non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) as a debt for willful and malicious injury.

Green Acres MHP, LLC v. George Dunlop, Jr. (In re Green Acres MHP, LLC), Ch. 11 Sub. V, BK22-80635-TLS, A23-8003-TLS (Aug. 28, 2023)

The court granted the Subchapter V debtor’s unopposed motion for summary judgment in this adversary proceeding seeking the court’s permission to use the plan confirmation process to restructure the manner in which the debtor provides water to and receives payment from the residents of its housing development.

Kenneth Joseph Woodard v. Navient Solutions, LLC (In re Woodard), Ch. 13, BK08-81442, A21-8023-TLS (Mar. 8, 2023)

The court approved the formation of a circuit-wide class action to challenge alleged violations of the § 524(a) discharge injunction in connection with the collection of student loan debt. The court found that it has the authority to enforce discharge orders other than ones it entered because such orders operate by the statutory authority of § 524(a)(2) and the court’s power under § 105(a), and are not individualized, hand-crafted orders that require interpretation.

Philip Kelly, Chap. 7 Trustee v. Valda McDonald (In re Marissa Lynn Dedrick), Ch. 7, BK22-40277-TLS, A22-4014-TLS (Feb. 23, 2023)

The Chapter 7 trustee filed this adversary proceeding to recover a preferential payment the debtor allegedly made for past-due rent. The defendant denied that the payment had been made and asserted that her signature on the payment receipt was forged. At trial, the only question before the court was whether the trustee had met his burden of proving the existence of the payment by a preponderance of the evidence.

Sheri J. Palmer Revocable Trust v. Jason Michael Stephens (In re Stephens), Ch. 7, BK21-40869-TLS, A21-4023-TLS (Dec. 12, 2022)

After a trial on the plaintiff’s complaint to except a debt from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A), the court ruled for the defendant. The plaintiff loaned $500,000 to the debtor to purchase a controlling interest in a bank. For various reasons, the debtor bought only a minority interest, and the transaction took longer than the plaintiff expected. When the debtor filed a Chapter 7 case, the plaintiff filed this adversary proceeding to have the debt declared non-dischargeable.

Eletech, Inc., v. Jonathan Jones (In re Jones), Ch. 7, BK21-80876-TLS, A21-8024-TLS (Dec. 7, 2022)

The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment to a creditor holding a judgment debt and excepted the debt from discharge. The state-court judgment was entitled to preclusive effect on the matter of dischargeability, as the elements of § 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(4), and (a)(6) were established by the state-court record. The debtor did not identify any genuine issues of material fact that would preclude summary judgment.

James A. Overcash, Chap. 7 Trustee v. Bank of Dixon County (In re Tori Lynn Mattes), Ch. 7, BK21-80346-TLS, A21-8014-TLS (June 8, 2022)

The court granted summary judgment to the Chapter 7 trustee, avoiding a lien that was noted on a vehicle’s certificate of title after the bankruptcy petition date. The court found the lien to be an unauthorized post-petition transfer and a preference. Because the lien was not timely noted on the title, it did not attach and was not perfected under Nebraska law. The lien was avoided and the creditor ordered to disgorge payments received on it.

Topp's Mechanical, Inc., Ch. 11, BK21-40038-TLS (Nov. 23, 2021)

The court sustained the objection to confirmation filed by the Subchapter V trustee regarding the plan provisions for payment of a secured creditor’s § 1111(b) claim. The court found that the plan proposes to pay to the secured creditor “far more than it is entitled to receive as a result of its election under 11 U.S.C. § 1111(b), [so] there is less money available to pay to unsecured creditors. Accordingly, the plan discriminates unfairly and is not fair and equitable to the class of unsecured creditors.”


Subscribe to RSS - Judge Thomas L. Saladino