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.

The Court granted summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff, Trustee, bringing a 547(b) action against the Defendant, on cross motions for summary judgment.  The Court found that two payments made from the Debtor to the Defendant five days before the petition date were preferential.  The Debtor made two payments from an account created as the result of a contract between Debtor and Defendant, which set up a relationship whereby the Defendant sold warranties and the Debtor administered the warranties, paying claims and insuring the warranties through its relationship with a third party.  In dispute was the interest of the Debtor in the account, whether the Defendant was a creator, and whether the court should impose a constructive trust over the funds in the account to the benefit of the Defendant.

Trustee moved for summary judgment on a preference action.  Defendant argued against summary judgment for three main reasons: (1) the Trustee had failed to prove that the Debtor was insolvent at the time of the alleged payments as required by 11 U.S.C. §547(b)(3); (2) the payments were made in the ordinary course of business and could not be avoided pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §547(c)(2); and (3) the loans made by the Defendant during the preference period constituted "new value" which barred any preference recovery pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §547(c)(4).  The Court entered partial summary judgment for the Plaintiff ruling that: (1) the Trustee had failed to provide evidence proving that the Debtor was insolvent at the time of the transfers; (2) the payments were not in the ordinary course of business and the ordinary course of business defense could not be met; and (3) the loans made by the Defendant during the preference period to the Debtor constituted new value which would be a partial defense, reducing any preference amounts by the amounts loaned.  

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.