The Court overruled the chapter 13 trustee's objection to confirmation and held that the debtor could use the Local Standard expense amounts applicable to Florida residents on his means test because the debtor resided in Florida on the date of filing the bankruptcy petition.
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 Ben T. Barry
Chapter 13 trustee's objections to confirmation of plans were sustained. The court held that above median income chapter 13 debtors are required to pay into their respective plans the monthly disposable income as determined by Form B22C, even though their current monthly income (as defined by the code) exceeded present income.
Under pre BAPCPA preference law, trustee may avoid two of four payments made during preference period determined by the Court not to have been paid in the ordinary course of business of the debtor and the creditor.
Court overruled creditor's objection to chapter 7 trustee's application for settlement. Creditor argued that a trust the debtors created pre-petition to hold real property was fraudulent and claimed a lien on the proceeds resulting from the sale of the property by the chapter 7 trustee. The Court held that even if trust was invalid, chapter 7 trustee could avoid creditor's lien pursuant to § 544(a)(3).
Motion to extend time for UST to file motion under s. 704(b)(2) is denied as a matter of law. A definitive 10-day statement of whether a debtor's chapter 7 case would be presumed to be an abuse, as required under s. 704(b)(1), is a prerequisite to filing the motion required by s. 704(b)(2). Because the UST did not file a definitive 10-day statement, the threshold requirement to filing the s. 704(b)(2) motion has not been met and the UST is precluded from filing a motion to dismiss or convert under s. 704(b)(2). Therefore, the motion to extend the time to file a s. 704(b)(2) motion is moot.
The Court determined that certain funds were non-dischargeable in the debtor's bankruptcy as a result of embezzlement in accordance with s. 523(a)(4).
Judge Richard D. Taylor
Trustee's cause of action denied for failure to prove all elements of a constructively fraudulent transfer under 11 U.S.C. s 548.
Audrey R. Evans
Pro se individual (Petitioner), while incarcerated in federal prison, mailed 74 involuntary bankruptcy petitions and other miscellaneous documents to clerk of court in attempt to file such petitions against various individuals and entities, including federal judges. Court found there was not proper venue in Arkansas and that Petitioner was not eligible under Section 303 of the Code to file these involuntary petitions. Court further found that such petitions were frivolous and submitted for filing merely to harass and without any basis in fact or law. In light of the adverse effects which could be caused by simply docketing the abusive involuntary petitions, Court found there was cause to withhold docketing petitions and to withhold public disclosure of names contained therein under Section 107(c) of the Code. Court found appropriate sanctions were to (1) direct clerk of court to reject and not docket these involuntary petitions and submissions, (2) prohibit Petitioner from filing any additional involuntary petitions, and (3) refer matters to US Attorney for possible further investigation. In re Risby, 2008 WL 116701 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2008).
Court adopted Judge James G. Mixon's ruling in In re Wilson, 373 B.R. 638 (Bankr. W.D. Ark. 2007), holding that debtors were entitled to deduct the standard vehicle ownership expense for purposes of the means test notwithstanding that the debtors owned their vehicles outright, and thus, had no "actual" ownership payments. Not selected for publication. Affirmed on appeal to 8th Circuit. See In re Washburn, 579 F.3d 934 (8th Cir. 2009).
In deciding that collateral estoppel applied to a state court judgment awarding compensatory, treble and punitive damages for trespass and conversion involving the cutting of trees on plaintiff's property, the Court determined that while the jury instructions established willfulness for purposes of the exception to discharge under 11 U.S.C. s. 523(a)(6) for a debt resulting from a wilful and malicious injury, the jury instructions did not establish maliciousness. However, the jury instructions and questionnaire with respect to punitive damages made it clear that the jury also made a finding of maliciousness, and therefore, the state court judgment, in its entirety, is nondischargeable in debtor's bankruptcy case.Quadrangle v. Harper (In re Harper), 378 B.R. 836 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2007).