You are here

Judge Thomas L. Saladino

Ronald P. Hasley & Vicki A. Hasley, d/b/a Swite Enter. v. Tyler B. Irons (In re Irons), Ch. 7, BK15-40876, A15-4051 (Mar. 9, 2017)

After a trial interrupted by the plaintiff's medical condition, which prevented him from testifying and necessitated further continuances, the court granted the debtor-defendant's motion for judgment on partial findings under Rule 7052.

Francis E. Anders, Ch. 13, BK17-41268 (Feb. 19, 2019)

After a trial, the court sustained the debtor's objection to the claim of an over-secured lender and reduced the fees and expenses included in the claim to a reasonable amount. The claim included fees for late charges, appraisals of collateral, and environmental assessments. The evidence indicated the late charges were improperly calculated, so they were reduced. The lender's standard operating procedures require appraisals and environmental assessments, but the court noted those requirements are not unrestricted.

Milton Douglas Widick & Robin Carlotta Widick, Ch. 13, BK10-40187 (Sept. 10, 2019)

The debtors filed this show-cause motion to challenge the IRS's post-discharge seizure of tax refunds and Social Security payments to collect post-petition interest when the underlying taxes and penalties were paid in full through the confirmed Chapter 13 plan. Eighth Circuit precedent is clear that post-petition interest and penalties are non-dischargeable, and the debtors remain personally liable for that interest subsequent to bankruptcy proceedings, so the motion is denied.

Planet Merchant Processing, Inc. v. Kim Geiken (In re Planet Merchant Processing, Inc.), Ch. 7, BK16-81243, A17-8002 (Aug. 8, 2017)

The bankruptcy court recommends to the district court that it withdraw the reference of this adversary proceeding. The bankruptcy trustee is pursuing claims of trade secret misappropriation and copyright infringement against a former software developer for a company affiliated with the debtor and the former customer who subsequently hired her. A similar lawsuit is currently pending in federal district court. The causes of action in the adversary proceeding are non-core and do not arise under Title 11.

Shane Anthony Morris & Donna Ann Morris v. The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co. (In re Morris), Ch. 13, BK17-81698, A18-8002 (June 5, 2018)

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.

Scott Ryan Longnecker & Heather Renee Longnecker, Ch. 7, BK19-80120 (June 26, 2019)

The court granted the Chapter 7 trustee's objection to exemptions concerning the debtor's shares of his employer's stock incentive plan. The "retention shares" were part of his earnings, but they were not subject to garnishment and cannot be exempted under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1558(1). The debtor owns the shares, subject to forfeiture if certain conditions are not met, and enjoys all the rights and benefits of ownership, so they are no longer wages and are simply personal property which is not under any special protection.

Ron Ross, Chap. 11 Trustee v. Robert L. Rynard, Jr. (In re Skyline Manor, Inc.), Ch. 11, BK14-80934, A17-8008 (Apr. 14, 2017)

The bankruptcy court recommends to the district court that it withdraw the reference of this adversary proceeding. The bankruptcy trustee seeks to recover fraudulent transfers from the corporate transferee's principal through alter ego and veil-piercing theories. The defendant is entitled to a jury trial on these state-law non-bankruptcy claims, so the district court is the appropriate place for the case.

W. Terminal Transp., L.L.C. v. Great W. Enter., Inc. (In re Happy Jack's Petroleum, Inc.), Ch. 7, BK16-41395, A17-4046 (Mar. 8, 2018)

This adversary complaint was filed to object to the amount, validity, and extent of a secured claim held by an assignee of the original lender. On summary judgment, the plaintiff argued that one of the promissory notes at issue is unsecured and unenforceable because no agreements securing that note had been assigned to the claimant. The assignee argued that all of the loans made to the debtors were cross-collateralized, so it holds a beneficial security interest in instruments securing other loans even though no formal assignment of those security interests was made.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Judge Thomas L. Saladino