In objection to discharge of joint debtors, the Court denied the discharge of husband-debtor for making false oaths related to omissions of transfers from his petition and for failing to explain loss of assets but did not deny the discharge of wife-debtor; the Court abstained from determining that objecting creditors' individual debts were nondischargeable since the issues presented could be more expeditiously resolved in a state court proceeding.
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.
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).
Audrey R. Evans
Court determined that Chapter 7 Debtors, whose assets were levied on post-discharge by the IRS, were not entitled to reimbursement from the bankruptcy estate for non-dischargeable, pre-petition taxes that were not paid by the Trustee. The Court found that under 11 U.S.C. § 507(d), Debtors were statutorily precluded from obtaining the IRS’ priority status which Congress specifically reserved for the taxing authority. The Court further found that the Trustee paid claims in a timely manner, and that because Debtors remained personally liable for the non-dischargeable taxes they paid, they were not entitled to subrogation under either statutory or equitable grounds. In re Frankum, 399 B.R. 498 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2009).
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).
Judge Richard D. Taylor
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.
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.
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.