On remand from the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Tenth Circuit, the Court was tasked with determining the standing of a group of creditors to bring state law claims against affiliates of the Debtor, and the Debtor himself by name only, taking place many years after the Debtor received his discharge. After determining that the group of creditors did own the claims at issue concurrently with the Trustee, and with the closure of the bankruptcy case, the creditors now had standing again to bring the claims in state court; then, the Court was tasked with determining whether the group of creditors violated the Debtor’s discharge injunction by bringing the claims, despite not seeking to recovery from the Debtor. Applying the tests of In re Robben, 562 B.R. 469 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2017) and In re Walker, 927 F.2d 1142 (10th Cir. 1991), the Court determined the group of creditors did violate the discharge injunction because the Debtor’s inclusion was not a prerequisite for recovery from the third party defendants.
You are here
The District of Utah offers a database of opinions for the years 1979 to Current, listed by year and judge. For a more detailed search, enter the keyword or case number in the search box above.
Title: In re Hafen | Date: Jun-3-2022 | Status: PUBLISHED (Judge Thurmann) | Case(s): 04-25018
Title: In re SoNev Construction, LLC | Date: Jun-2-2022 | Status: PUBLISHED (Judge Thurmann) | Case(s): 22-21037
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.
Title: In re Offer Space | Date: Apr-22-2021 | Status: PUBLISHED (Judge Thurmann) | Case(s): 20-27480
The Court was tasked with analyzing what "engaged in commercial or business activities" means under sub V. The Court determined that (1) debtor must be currently engaged in business activity, and (2) deciding if debtor was currently engaged required a totality of the circumstances analysis. The issue being argued was that the business was shuddered, and therefore the Debtor was not engaged in business activities. The Court determined the Debtor was actively engaged in business activities as of the Petition Date due to having bank accounts, accounts receivable, analyzing counterclaims, managing its stock, and winding down its business to realize value for creditors, and therefore was eligible to proceed in Subchapter 5 of Chapter 11.
Title: In re Abel | Date: Aug-14-2020 | Status: UNPUBLISHED (Judge Anderson) | Case(s): 20-21042
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.
Title: In re Ulloa | Date: Jun-18-2020 | Status: PUBLISHED (Judge Anderson) | Case(s): 18-20366
The Debtors sought to retain $16,813.44 issued by Wells Fargo as a refund for an unecessary, forced placement of collateral protection insurance in 2008 in connection with the Debtors' vehicle loan. The Court found that the refund was property fo the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. Section 541 to which the trustee was entitled to administer for the benefit of the estate.
Title: In re Hazlett | Date: Feb-13-2020 | Status: PUBLISHED (Judge Anderson) | Case(s): 16-30360
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.
Title: Arma Yates, LLC v. Robertson (In re Robertson) | Date: Jan-9-2020 | Status: PUBLISHED (Judge Anderson) | Case(s): 18-02059
In an action objecting to the Debtors' discharge under 11 U.S.C. Section 727(a)(2)(A), 727(a)(2)(B), 727(a)(3), 727(a)(4), and 727(a)(5), the Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.
Title: Densley v. Dyches (In re Dyches) | Date: Dec-13-2019 | Status: UNPUBLISHED (Judge Mosier) | Case(s): 10-2653
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.
Title: In re Cloward | Date: Nov-19-2019 | Status: PUBLISHED (Judge Anderson) | Case(s): 18-24837
Under Utah Hospital Lien Statute, lien arises and attaches when hospital provides emergency medical services to patient injured in an accident.
Title: In re Hazlett | Date: Oct-17-2019 | Status: PUBLISHED (Judge Anderson) | Case(s): 16-30360
Debtors attorney did not violate the automatic stay under SS 362 because the attorneys post-petition services arose under a post-petition agreement.