Prior to filing, the Debtor failed to pay his HOA dues, a foreclosure sale was completed on Debtor's residence, and forced sheriff's eviction was scheduled. The day before the scheduled eviction, the debtor purchased a new vehicle on credit in the morning to avoid a higher interest rate in bankruptcy, and then filed his Chapter 13 case later in the afternoon. Debtor then sought to use a fraudulent transfer adversary proceeding to claw back his house from the purchaser from the completed sale. Debtor was unable to confirm a plan due to bad faith, and the Trustee moved for dismissal for inability to confirm a plan. In granting the Motion, the court ruled that Debtor had abused the provisions, purpose, and spirit of the Bankruptcy Code, and no proposable plan could overcome a lack of eligibility for plan confirmation due to those abuses.
Opinions:
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.
(Judge: Lena M. James)
Debtors sought to reopen their Chapter 13 after completing their plan and receiving their discharge almost three years prior, to challenge the validity of their mortgagor's Deed of Trust. During the case, the Debtors never objected to the mortgagor's proof of claim, the mortgage was paid through the plan, and the Debtors relied on the mortgage to lien strip a junior mortgage. Since the plan was closed, the mortgagor has made several attempts at foreclosure, leading to substantial state and federal litigation and administrative actions. The court ruled that the mortgagor would be prejudiced by reopening the case, that laches applied in precluding the reopening of the case, and that state court was the appropriate forum to address the Debtors' claims. Motion denied.
(Judge: Lena M. James)
Debtor sought reconsideration of the order dismissing her Chapter 13 case with prejudice and requested the court to set aside dismissal or amend the order to remove the 180-day bar from refiling. The court found that the Debtor did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 60(b)(6), and did not establish grounds for the Plan to be modified to remove the 180 day bar. Concerns regarding a mortgage and escrow payment should have been met with a claim objection rather than a decision to cease plan payments. Motion Denied.
(Judge: Lena M. James)
Former business associate of the Debtor obtained a default judgment against the Debtor in Connecticut state court prior to the petition date, and filed an adversary proceeding to assert nondischargeability pursuant 523(a)(2)(A) and 523(a)(4). The Debtor failed to answer or otherwise plead, and after re-issuing summons, the plaintiff obtained a default judgment in the proceeding. The Debtor motioned to vacate the default judgment and entry of default pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) and (6) on the grounds that the Debtor was never served despite plaintiff's attempts. The Court ruled that the Debtor's Motion was timely; that the Debtor could assert meritorious defenses, and that the Connecticut judgment was did not collaterally estop the Debtor from opposing the claims in the current proceeding; that no party was unfairly prejudiced by vacating the default judgment; that the Debtor was never properly served pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 7004; and that entry of default could be set aside.
(Judge: Lena M. James)
Debtor filed an adversary proceeding seeking to recover real property sold at foreclosure prior to the petition date pursuant to § 548, and the Trustee was added as a co-plaintiff. Defendant purchaser moved to dismiss the case, claiming (a) that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim and that the Court's prior ruling on a Motion for Preliminary Injunction evidenced as much; (b) that Defendant's status as a good faith, third party purchaser protected Defendant pursuant to state law; and (c) that the Rooker Feldman doctrine, res judicata, and collateral estoppel preclude the Plaintiffs from bringing their claim. The Court ruled that Plaintiffs did sufficiently plead pursuant to Iqbal and Twombley, and that the standard used in adjudicating a Motion to Dismiss is distinct from an injunction analysis. Further, the Court dismissed Defendant's assertion that it was protected under state law as a good faith, third party purchaser as irrelevant pursuant to § 550. Finally, the Court found that the Rooker Feldman doctrine, res judicat, and collateral estoppel did not apply in this proceeding. Motion Denied.
(Judge: Lena M. James)
Chapter 13 Trustee and creditor who failed to properly perfect a vehicle covered under the hanging paragraph of 1325(a) reached a settlement with the Debtor on the Trustee's 549 avoidance action. The Consent Order found the value of the avoidance was equal to the creditor's fully secured claim, and the order further directed that the equity be preserved for unsecured general claims. The Trustee brought a Motion to Modify Plan to incorporate that requirement into the Plan, and the Debtor objected, arguing that only the collateral's value need be paid into the Plan, as in addition to the claim being voidable under 549, it was also void ab initio. In ruling for the Trustee, the Court declined to answer whether the claim was void, as the Consent Order already established the lien's status as avoidable.
(Judge: Lena M. James)
Prior to filing, a Debtor's residence was foreclosed upon by his homeowners association and sold via a non-judicial sale. The real property was purchased, a foreclosure deed was delivered, an order for eviction was obtained, and a Sheriff's eviction was scheduled. Prior to eviction, the Debtor filed for bankruptcy. The purchaser moved to lift the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)(1)-(2) to continue with eviction under state law, and the Debtor opposed the motion, arguing that as he had filed an adversary proceeding under § 548 that went to the heart of the purchaser's claimed ownership, that relief from stay should be denied. The Court found that legal title to the property had passed to the purchaser under North Carolina law, and that cause existed to modify the stay under subsection (d)(1). Further, the Court found that, as legal title had passed, the Debtor had no equity in the property, and that the Debtor made no argument as to the property's necessity for an effective reorganization such that the stay could be modified under subsection (d)(2). The Court also found that the pendency of the Debtor's adversary proceeding was no impediment to granting the purchaser's requested relief.
(Judge: Lena M. James)
Court granted motion for waiver of financial management course requirement under section 727(a)(11) for a Chapter 7 who died prior to taking the course.
(Judge: Lena M. James)
Decedent Chapter 7 Debtor's wife filed a motion, acting as personal representative of the probate estate, to avoid two judicial liens against the Debtor's real property that were not avoided during the bankruptcy. While courts have allowed lien avoidance nunc pro tunc by personal representatives, here the Debtor transferred the real property to entireties property prior to his death and discharge. Here, the property is now, and has always been, outside the probate estate. Thus, the wife lacks standing to reopen the case, as the property is not within the probate estate, and the judgment creditor has no claim against an asset of the estate or the estate itself.
(Judge: Lena M. James)
The Chapter 13 Trustee filed a motion to distribute funds held in reserve to a first mortgage holder. The Trustee had been holding funds due to a mistaken satisfaction of the first mortgage lien. The motion was denied without prejudice.
Pages
Printer-friendly version