Got up early this morning on the hunt for a case or two to cover in my new podcast series. As always, even with bankruptcy cases at historic lows, there’s a lot going on!
In a new published case out of the Ninth Circuit BAP, Judges Lafferty, Faris, and Spraker affirmed trial court’s dismissal of an adversary proceeding against the debtor. Plaintiff failed to perfect its lien under California law. This court published because it wanted to clarify that 108(c) doesn’t toll filing notices under 546(b). Philmont Management v. 450 S. Western Ave. (2:20-bk-10264-ER).
Turning to the trial courts, there were two opinions out of the Eastern District of Michigan. A subchapter V case was dismissed for failing to file a plan. In re Back To Life Properties. In a different case, Judge Opperman granted summary judgment for a 523(a)(4) complaint over a construction dispute. Miller v. Safford.
Heading south to Kansas, Judge Somers wrote a fairly long and complex opinion regarding Summary judgment in a chapter 12 case regard a 363 sale. In re Parsons.
In a District of Nebraska court, a chapter 11 plan was denied because of concerns over a 1111(b) election. Those elections always confused the daylights out of me, so I think I’ll skip it for today’s podcast! In re Topp’s Mechanical.
Over in Delaware, the court denied cram down on a debtor’s primary residence. Pedicone v. Ajax Mortgage.
Nearby, in the District of Columbia, summary judgment was granted in dispute over the sale of a house and fraud claims under 523(a)(2). Johnson v Johnson.
In South Carolina, a “frequent” pro se litigant’s chapter 7 was dismissed. In re France.
In the case I’ll probably cover in the podcast, a Southern District of Florida court issued a decision about temporarily closing an individual chapter 11 case to avoid administrative fees. In re Hill.
Let’s head back West! Next door to California, in Arizona, Judge Collins who recently paneled an interesting conversation at the ABI’s Consumer Bankruptcy Extravaganza and who’s court I observed in person once, issued an amusing opinion about objections to proofs of claim under the Affordable Care Act. In re Vallejo.
Disclaimer: on these posts, I do not necessarily read the entire case. Often I don’t, in fact. I usually skim them briefly, so if you see anything I got really wrong or an important nuance I missed… please let me know by sending me an email! firstname.lastname@example.org
Get Updates in Your Inbox!
Like what you read but worried you’ll forget to visit my website? Don’t worry. I’ve got you covered. Just sign up to get these posts delivered straight to your inbox!