Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7055, the debtor's Motion for Entry of Default and Motion for Default Judgment is granted based on the debtor's compliance with Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7004(b)(3) and the defendant's failure to respond to the Complaint to Determine Dischargeability of Student Loan Debt.
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
Court discharges debt on the basis that a separate debtor's actions in constructing a home did not cause a willful and malicious injury to another under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).
Court denies postconfirmation right of setoff absent sufficient grounds to lift stay.
Audrey R. Evans
Court disgorged fees paid by Debtor to Debtor's counsel in connection with her five-year chapter 13 plan finding that counsel failed to adequately represent her client, billed for services not rendered, and failed to communicate with her client. Counsel's inadequate representation harmed the Debtor, preventing her from receiving the benefits from her Chapter 13 bankruptcy that she would have received if she had been adequately represented. In re West, 398 B.R. 629 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2009).
Court granted preliminary injunction where Plaintiffs demonstrated that injunction was necessary to prevent Defendant from continuing its efforts to collect payments from the Plaintiffs which they did not owe. Defendant, a mortgage servicing institution, ignored communication from, and refused to provide accurate information to, the Plaintiffs about their home mortgage. Defendant did not accurately apply the payments it received from the Plaintiffs or the Chapter 13 Trustee, did not accurately process information vital to the servicing of the Plaintiffs loan, did not send the Plaintiffs accurate mortgage statements, did not provide an accurate payment history, and did not discover the mistakes it made, yet continued its collection efforts against Plaintiffs. The Court enjoined the Defendant from (1) contacting the Plaintiffs except by regular monthly mortgage statements showing only true and accurate information as to what is owed by the Plaintiffs on their mortgage; and (2) attempting to collect any arrearages, late fees, or any other amounts exceeding the Plaintiffs monthly mortgage payments; the injunction is to remain in effect until a trial on the merits is concluded. Moffitt v. America's Servicing Company(In re Moffitt), 390 B.R. 368 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2008).
Judge Ben T. Barry
The Court sustained the creditor's objection to "termination pay" being a similar plan or contract entitled to exemption under section 522(d)(10(E). Although contingent at the time of filing, the contract is property of the estate; the Court found it to be an unadministered asset.
The Court sustained the chapter 13 trustee's objection to the debtor's modified plan, which provided for post-petition creditors that had not filed proofs of claim.
The Court denied the plaintiff's complaint to avoid an alleged preferential transfer because the plaintiff did not meet its burden of proof with regard to the fifth element of a preferential transfer--that the transfer enabled the creditor to receive more than it would receive in a chapter 7 liquidation case. The Court also recognized that the earmarking doctrine was not applicable when the transfer was from a secured creditor to an unsecured creditor.
Creditor objected to the confirmation of the debtors' chapter 13 plan claiming it held a 910 car claim that was not subject to bifurcation. The debtors argued that because negative equity from a trade-in vehicle was part of the purchase price, the creditor did not hold a PMSI as described in the hanging paragraph of section 1325(a), and bifurcation was appropriate. The Court sustained the creditor's objection because the final agreement between the parties did not show that negative equity was part of the obligation.
James G. Mixon
The Court found that because the adversary proceeding was based on failure to abide by the terms of the promissory note, Arkansas Code Annoted section 16-22-308 applied. The Court found that the attorney's fees requested were reasonable pursuant to state law and that the requested costs were allowable pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7054(b).