Court overrules debtor's objection to claim.
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 Richard D. Taylor
Judge Ben T. Barry
The court granted the UST’s motion to dismiss under § 707(b)(1) after finding that the debtors’ debt was primarily consumer debt and that the debtors did not rebut the presumption of abuse that arises under § 707(b)(2).
The Court found that two separate debtors incurred a debt on account of false pretenses and actual fraud. The debt was created by a state court judgment finding that the debtors committed constructive fraud under Arkansas law. Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, the Court was precluded from determining some, but not all, of the elements of section 523(a)(2)(A).
The Court overruled the creditor’s objection to the debtors’ claimed Arkansas state homestead exemption under § 522. The debtors’ use of a portion of their homestead property for business purposes did not change the homestead character of the property because the debtors had not manifested an intent to abandon that portion of the property from their homestead.
Audrey R. Evans
Court held that mortgage creditor had standing to file proof of claim because even though it did not initially attach a copy of the note indorsed to it, it ultimately produced and filed the indorsed Note. Additional evidence showing the creditor had standing was a recorded assignment of mortgage listing it as the mortgage creditor filed prior the debtor's bankruptcy, and the fact that debtors listed the creditor as their mortgage creditor on their plan and schedules. The Court also found that Debtors successfully rebutted the validity and reasonableness of certain foreclosure fees charged by the mortgage creditor. In re Burrow, 2011 WL 1103354 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. March 22, 2011).
Court overruled objection to unredacted proof of claim because 11 U.S.C. § 502(b) does not provide for such disallowance and 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) does not provide a private cause of action. Court dismissed the Debtor's contempt claim because the Debtor alleged no specific facts showing that the violation was willful or that the Debtor suffered any monetary damages other than her attorney's fees. Court also dismissed Debtor's state law invasion of privacy claim because she failed to allege sufficient facts showing that the unredacted information actually reached or was sure to reach the public at large. Dunbar v. Cox Health Alliance, LLC (In re Dunbar), 446 B.R. 306 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2011).
Court held that it was not barred by collateral estoppel from making a determination on “willful and malicious” requirements of § 523(a)(6) because Debtor’s guilty plea to crime of battery may have been satisfied, in this case, by recklessness prong of criminal statute, and because civil judgment for intentional tort of battery was based on Debtor’s stipulation to liability. Following a full review of the evidence, the Court found that the Debtor’s actions were willful, but that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that the Debtor’s actions were malicious. As a result, Court held that the judgment debt was not excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(6). Hidy v. Bullard (In re Bullard), 451 B.R. 473 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2011). Affirmed on appeal to 8th Circuit BAP. See Hidy v. Bullard (In re Bullard), 449 B.R. 379 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2011).
Court found that the Debtors' transfer of a remainder interest in real property to their mother was not actual fraud under 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(A), but was constructively fraudulent pursuant to 11 U.S.C § 548(a)(1)(B) because no consideration was provided in exchange for the transferred interest and the Debtors were insolvent at the time of the transfer. Luker v. Eubanks (In re Eubanks), 444 B.R.415 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2010).
James G. Mixon
For purposes of determining the eligibility requirements in a Chapter 13 pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 109(e), the Debtor's schedules will be sufficient unless there is a showing of bad faith.
The creditor was prevented from enforcing their medical lien when the bankruptcy case was filed. 11 U.S.C. 108(c) tolls the time period for the enforcement action, thereby preserving the medical lien while in bankruptcy.