You are here

Opinions

Notice: Not all of the Judges Opinions will be made available on this site. Individual Judges have the option of specifying that all, some or none of their opinions be posted.

Judge Bianca M. Rucker

Hicks 10/07/2026

In this chapter 13 case, the pro se debtor filed a motion for relief from stay alleging that the Arkansas Department of Finance & Administration [ADFA] had violated the stay by refusing to register and provide tags for her vehicle unless she first paid pre-petition sales tax and post-petition registration, title, and license fees and penalties.  In response, ADFA argued that it had sovereign immunity as a state agency, its actions were excepted from the stay under § 362(b)(4) and (b)(9)(D), and ADFA had not violated the stay because it had taken no affirmative action in regard to the debtor’s property nor exerted control over it.  The Court found that sovereign immunity did not apply pursuant to § 106 and Supreme Court precedent, ADFA had violated the stay under § 362(a)(6) by refusing to register the vehicle unless the debtor paid the pre-petition sales tax, ADFA’s request for payment of the sales tax was an affirmative act and its refusal to register the vehicle without payment of the sales tax was coercive.  However, the Court found that ADFA had not violated the stay in regard to the registration, title, and licensing fees and penalties because the collection of such fees and penalties are excepted from the automatic stay under § 362(b)(4) as an exercise of ADFA’s regulatory power.  The Court ordered ADFA to register the vehicle and provide physical tags to the debtor upon her payment of any outstanding fees, including registration, title, license fees, and any penalties related thereto. 

 

Eastburn 05/05/2026

In this adversary proceeding, the Court denied the chapter 7 trustee’s request to set aside the debtor’s prepetition transfer of his interest in a home the debtor had purchased for a friend and her children, finding that the transfer was not testamentary in nature, there was no mutual mistake, undue influence, unjust enrichment, or confidential relationship between the parties, and the debtor did not lack mental capacity despite his history of anxiety and depression. 

Hicks 02/26/2026

In this chapter 13 case, the debtors filed a motion under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f) to avoid a “clean-up lien” obtained by the City of Fort Smith pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 14-54-903 for costs the City incurred in connection with removing a dead tree from the debtors’ property after the debtors failed to remove the tree within seven days of receiving notice from the City that the tree constituted an ordinance violation.  Because the Court found that the City held a statutory lien that was not subject to avoidance under § 522(f), the Court denied the debtors’ motion to avoid lien.

Higgins 12/02/2025

The Court found that the creditors willfully violated the automatic stay when they sought and obtained a body attachment order in state court.  The Court awarded actual damages for emotional distress and, because the creditors’ actions were intentional and egregious, the Court also awarded punitive damages.

Chief Judge Phyllis M. Jones

Starks 09/28/2026

In this adversary proceeding, the Court granted the creditor’s request to deny the debtor’s discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §727(a)(4)(A), finding that the debtor made statements, under oath, with fraudulent intent and knowledge of the falsity of such statements, which were materially related to his bankruptcy by failing to disclose his business, business income, and a financial account. 

Gills 09/15/2026

The Court overruled the mortgage creditor’s objection to confirmation of the debtor’s Chapter 13 plan, which proposed to “cram down” the home mortgage, finding that because the final payment due on the mortgage was due prior to the filing of the instant case, such payment became due prior to the final payment under the plan is due, and so the treatment in the plan of the mortgage satisfied the exception to the “anti-modification provision” of 11 U.S.C. §1322(b)(2) which is found in 11 U.S.C. §1322(c)(2). The Court determined the value of the residence for confirmation purposes based on the only evidence before it, the value ascribed to the property by the Crittenden County Assessor.

Woods 02/04/2026

The estate of a deceased driver sought to have a state court judgment determined to be nondischargeable under Section 523(a)(6) where the debtor/defendant caused the driver’s death in a two-vehicle collision.  The court granted summary judgment in favor of the debtor/defendant where the plaintiff did not present evidence to dispute that the debtor/defendant did not deliberately or intentionally cause the injury nor target the victim failing to meet the willful and malicious standards of Section 523(a)(6). 

Holmes 01/16/2026

The bankruptcy court found that a $100,000 transfer made to the debtor from his aunt was a loan, not a gift, and that the debtor made false representations to his aunt to induced her to transfer the money to him making the debt nondischargeable as a debt obtained by false pretenses, false representations and actual fraud under to Section 523(a)(2)(A). 

Judge Richard D. Taylor

Whitehall Pharmacy LLC 09/03/2025

Although attorneys are responsible for flawed research generated by artificial intelligence, sanctions may be mitigated under the circumstances.

Roper 06/20/2025

Request for stay on appeal denied applying the appropriate factors.

Pages