The bankruptcy court denied the reclamation claims of certain grain sellers under U.C.C. § 2-702(2) because there was no evidence the debtor misrepresented its solvency to the sellers in writing within three months before delivery. Generally, sellers have a difficult time establishing that a buyer’s communication in fact represented its financial solvency.

The court granted Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss by two defendants in this adversary proceeding. The pro se complaint was removed from state court after the plaintiffs filed a bankruptcy case. The complaint sought to relitigate the priority of competing interests in grain proceeds, which had been decided in a previous adversary proceeding in connection with a previous bankruptcy case. Accordingly, the court granted the motions to dismiss on the basis of res judicata.

In this grain elevator bankruptcy case, a number of farmers who delivered grain to the debtor pre-petition but were not paid for it filed claims under § 557 to have their rights determined as to grain or grain proceeds held by the debtor. Some of the claimants hold statutory liens under state laws that are intended to protect producers in such situations, but not all of these laws provide the same levels of protection.

The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment to the bank holding a perfected first-priority security interest in the proceeds of grain collateral. The debtor withheld three checks for grain sold, refusing to endorse them and turn them over to the bank. Another creditor with a fertilizer/ag chemical lien was also a defendant in this case because it was a named payee on the checks.

After a trial, the bankruptcy court denied the U.S. Trustee’s complaint objecting to discharge under §§ 727(a)(2)(A), (a)(4)(A), and (a)(5). The debtor failed to list a business entity he had formed to replace a failing enterprise. As he liquidated the first company, he occasionally used the second company’s bank accounts for deposits and payments.

The court confirmed the debtor’s sixth amended Chapter 12 plan over the objections of a pair of unsecured creditors holding post-petition judgments who did not file timely proofs of claim. The creditors had objected on grounds of feasibility, good faith, and failure to meet the best interests of creditors test. However, the evidence showed that the debtor is making a sincere effort to salvage a substantially scaled-down farming operation.

After a trial, the court ruled for the plaintiff on the non-dischargeability of a debt under §§ 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(4), and (a)(6). The debt was owed by the debtor and the car dealership he owned and operated, and resulted in part from selling vehicles out of trust and pledging the same collateral to more than one lender.

After a trial, the court denied the plaintiffs’ complaint to except a debt from discharge under § 523(a)(6). The alleged debt concerned a deficiency in the plaintiffs’ share of proceeds from a partition sale forced by the debtor, under facts that seemed more like a breach of contract shoe-horned into a § 523(a)(6) proceeding. The evidence did not support a finding of willfulness or malice on the part of the debtor.

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.

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.