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.

The debtor in this case is a feedlot set up as an LLC. The bankruptcy trustee filed a preference avoidance action against one of the LLC's members to recover payments made to him when his cattle were sold. This court initially granted summary judgment to the trustee, but on appeal the district court remanded the matter for the court to focus on the issue of whether the funds transferred were actually property of the debtor and to specifically consider the issues of bailment and constructive trust.

In this order denying the debtors' motion to avoid a judgment lien, the court reiterated the paramount importance of providing proper notice to a defendant whose rights may be altered, and set out some guidelines for ensuring the achievement of proper service under the procedural rules. First, the defendant must be properly identified. Then, the plaintiff must figure out which method of service is appropriate, e.g., on a registered agent, by first-class mail to an officer or agent at the defendant's street address, or on a named officer of an insured depository institution.

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.

An unsecured junior lien on the debtor's residential real estate may be avoided after the debtor completes Chapter 13 plan payments. The case law in the Eighth Circuit permits wholly unsecured liens to be stripped off.

Venue for a trustee's adversary proceeding to avoid allegedly fraudulent transfers was appropriate in the district in which the bankruptcy case was filed. The out-of-state defendants had moved to dismiss, arguing that 28 U.S.C. § 1409(b) requires such lawsuits to be brought in the defendants' home district, but the court denied that motion, noting that § 1409(b) addresses only proceedings "arising in" or "related to" a bankruptcy case and fraudulent transfer avoidance actions "arise under" the Bankruptcy Code.

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.

The bankruptcy court remanded a state-court lawsuit filed by debtors concerning the basis for the creditors' claim. The issues raised, including state-law causes of action and arguments regarding preclusion, are not unique to bankruptcy and can be decided in state court.

The court approved a reduced amount of fees for debtor's counsel after finding the requested fees to be excessive and unreasonable, with very little progress made or benefit provided to the estate during the eight months the case has been pending.

The court granted a secured creditor's motions for sanctions and disgorgement of fees against counsel for a debtor whose case was dismissed for acting in bad faith. The debtor was a successor entity to a previous Chapter 11 debtor. The prior debtor defaulted on its plan payments and the secured creditor obtained relief from the automatic stay.