The Court was required to determine the proper location to file a UCC Financing Statement in order to be properly perfected as a secured creditor. The Debtor at issue is a registered organization of Nevada, but has a principal place of business in Utah. The Creditor at issue filed a financing statement solely in the state of Utah. Based on the identical provisions of the UCC adopted by UT and NV, the Court determined that Nevada is the sole location to file a financing statement to perfect an interest in property, because the Debtor is a “registered organization” of Nevada and the UCC limited the location for perfecting an interest to solely the state of registration. Accordingly, the particular creditor was determined to not have a perfected security interest in the property.

The Debtor moved from Montana to Utah prior to filing her bankruptcy petition and the Bankruptcy Code's domiciliary provision required her to claim Montana exemptions. The issue was whether the Montana residency limitation on exemptions applied to debtors in bankruptcy, or in the alternative, whether 11 U.S.C. Section 522(b)(3) permitted the Debtor to claim federal or Montana exemptions against some, none, or all of her assets. Based on precedent from the Montana Supreme Court and applying the plain meaning of each word while observing the distinction between an individual and a resident, the Court found that the specifics of Mont. Code Ann. Section 31-2-106 controlled over the general of Mont. Code Ann. Section 25-13-6. In the alternative the Court held that if Montana limits its exemptions to residents, then the Debtor was rendered ineligible for any exemption and the safety net in 11 U.S.C. Section 522 applied. The Court would apply the State specific interpretation to apply the state law to the fullest extent possible, including any limitations imposed by the Montana exemption statute on the category or amount of a Montana exemption.

The Court denied the Debtor's motion to reconsider seeking relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b), 59(e), and 60(b) made applicable to bankruptcy cases by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7052, 9023, and 9024. The Debtor did not persuade the Court than an error, manifest or otherwise, was committed in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in this matter.

Plaintiff obtained a money judgment in Utah state court against Defendant. When the Defendant filed bankruptcy, Plaintiff commenced a § 523 proceeding to except the judgment from discharge. Defendant failed to answer, and a default judgment was entered. Shortly less than eight years after entry of the bankruptcy default, Plaintiff filed a motion in the adversary proceeding to renew the default judgment in accordance with Utah law. The Court denied the Plaintiff’s motion, concluding that the Plaintiff had not filed it within the "original action", as required by Utah Code Ann. § 78B-6-1802. The Court noted that a nondischargeability judgment is composed of two parts: the judgment on the underlying debt and the judgment of nondischargeability. The Court then held that the "original action," within the context of a nondischargeability judgment, is the judicial proceeding in which the judgment liquidating the underlying debt is first obtained. Because the debt between the Plaintiff and Defendant had been liquidated in state court, that proceeding was the "original action" under Utah law.