The court dismissed this case and another case because the debtors failed to file a motion to extend time to file schedules within 45 days from the date of the petition. The court had no discretion under section 521(i) but to deny the late-filed motion to extend and dismiss the case.
You are here
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
Wells Fargo filed a proof of claim with an attached note and mortgage that did not include an indorsement memorializing an alleged transfer of the note and mortgage. When another copy of the note and mortgage was provided to the debtor with an additional indorsement, the debtor brought this AP arguing that Wells Fargo did not own the note and alleging fraud on the court. The court denied the complaint.
The court granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment after finding that the plaintiff’s statement of undisputed facts were deemed true and admitted for the purpose of the summary judgment motion. The facts established the elements of defalcation in a fiduciary relationship relating to the PACA trust.
The court denied Bank of America’s [BOA] motion to enjoin the PACA creditors from proceeding against BOA in New York to pursue proceeds and payments received by BOA to the extent the funds received by BOA were found to be PACA trust assets.
The court denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaints filed by the PACA creditors for the disgorgement of funds paid to the defendants in an amount sufficient to pay the remainder of the PACA creditors’ claims in full.
Judge Phyllis M. Jones
Granting hardship discharge on motion filed on behalf of deceased debtor and authorized by deceased debtor’s surviving spouse, and finding deceased debtor should be exempt from completing the financial management course required by Section 1328(g) of the Bankruptcy Code.
Pre-confirmation modifications of Chapter 13 plans must be noticed pursuant to both Rule 2002(a)(5) and Rule 2002(b)(2). Accordingly, all creditors must receive notice of a pre-confirmation plan modification.
In ruling on creditors’ Third Motion for Relief from Stay, the Court determined the law of the case doctrine applied to prior orders of the Court denying the relief sought; however, changed circumstances existed to allow the Court to revisit the prior orders and grant creditors’ request for relief to pursue their state law remedies as to a note and mortgage, but the Court did not find changed circumstances sufficient to allow collection of a $400,000 judgment. A five acre tract of land was also abandoned from the bankruptcy estate.
Abstaining from and remanding lawsuit to Lonoke County Circuit Court, where it originated prior to removal by debtor/defendant.
Relief from stay to pursue eviction proceedings against the Debtor is denied where, although the subject property was not property of the Debtor’s bankruptcy estate due to the completion pre-petition of a foreclosure action against the Debtor and property, the Debtor provided treatment for the creditor’s claim in its plan and the plan was confirmed without objection from the creditor. The Debtor may continue to reside on the property not as owner, but as lessee.