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.

The bankruptcy court remanded a state-court lawsuit that the debtors had removed in connection with their bankruptcy case. The lawsuit did not deal with bankruptcy issues – it involved breach of contract and tortious interference with business relations – and it was ready to be tried when it was removed from the state court, so the bankruptcy court abstained and equitably remanded the case for trial and liquidation of the claim, which could then be addressed in the debtors' Chapter 11 plan.

The court denied the trustee's motion for summary judgment in a preference action because the evidence before the court did not establish the element of insolvency, nor was it clear that the property transferred was property of the debtor.