The Court denied the Bankruptcy Administrator's request to dismiss case with a permanent bar from refiling. The Court nevertheless found that section 349 grants authority to bar a refiling for a period exceeding 180 days. In light of the Debtor's history as a serial filer, her violation of prior orders of the Court, and her submission of false evidence to the Court (forged credit counseling certificate), the Court dismissed the Debtor's case with a one year bar from refiling a Chapter 13 petition.
The NCMB offers a database of opinions for the years 2000 onward, listed by year and judge. For a more detailed search, enter the keyword or case number in the search box above.
Catharine R. Aron
The Court found that an oversecured creditor was entitled to pre- and post-petition interest at the contract default rate. With respect to post-petition interest, the Court found that the Trustee had failed to rebut the presumption that the contract rate should apply. The Court also found that adequate protection payments made by the debtor while the case was administratively consolidated should be credited to debt at issue. To determine the appropriateness of a request for post-petition attorneys' fees, the court looked to the underlying loan documents.
Court reconsidered interlocutory order, sua sponte, to clarify that Pricing Confirmation Documents, not Sales Settlement Sheets, constituted forward contracts under section 546(e)
Attorney for Debtor filed application for compensation with respect to efforts to determine that debtor had paid mortgage account in full, relying on the American Rule and its judicially fashioned exceptions. Court found that fees could be awarded for willful violation of the automatic stay, in light of unauthorized notices sent to debtor with respect to mortgage account.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss adversary proceeding under Rule 12(b)(6). The Court held that the complaint sufficiently stated a claim for breach of contract; that the plaintiff had successfully pled facts to support the claim that the Debtor was an intended third-party benficiary of a confidentiality agreement; that the plaintiff had plausibly alleged that the corporate defendants acted as the alter ego of an individual defendant; that the complaint properly pled a cause of action for breach of the implied duty to negotiate in good faith; and that the complaint sufficiently stated a claim for fraud in the inducement. Court dismissed final request for relief, an objection to claim on the sole basis that the debt was procured by misrepresentation, concealment of material facts, unfair and deceptive actions, and failures to act in good faith.
Court denied motion to reconsider order granting relief from automatic stay with respect to a manufactured home, finding that the creditor had not accepted a reaffirmation agreement, and the debtor had failed to redeem the property.
Court allowed judicial lien avoidance in case that was reopened without objection, finding that the creditor had not carried its burden of proving that any alleged prejudice it may have suffered outweighed harm to the debtors in not allowing avoidance.
Court first determined the ownership interests of the parties in certain companies, after an analysis of several agreements between the parties and the Trustee's request to avoid and recover certain transfers under sections 548, 549, and 550. Court then determined that certain intellectual property constituted an asset of the companies, in light of precendent distinguishing a patent assignment from an agreement to assign a patent. While the former must be in writing, the later may be oral. Ultimately, Court ordered assignment of the patents to the companies, as an agreement to assign a patent constitutes the proper subject of an action for specific performance.
Court overruled objection to claim on basis that creditor failed to comply with Rule 3001(c)(3)(B). Court noted that failure to comply with the rule does not constitute sufficient cause to disallow a claim.
Court denied motion to approve settlement of section 707(a) action, noting that the agreement was not in the interest of any creditors other than the one party to the agreement and observing that a trial on the underlying motion would likely be brief.