23bk15233, 24ap00044
Defendant/Debtor moved to dismiss the adversary complaint. HELD: The motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice and the debtor’s discharge was reinstated.

23bk01309
Trustee filed a motion to modify a debtor’s Chapter 13 plan pursuant to § 1329, arguing that her post-confirmation personal injury claim was part of the estate and the debtor could now increase payments to creditors. HELD: The Motion to Modify was denied without prejudice. At this time, the Trustee did not meet his burden of showing sufficient grounds to modify the debtor’s plan.

23bk15233
Complainant filed a motion requesting the court investigate the debtor’s filings and dismiss the bankruptcy case for bad faith. HELD: The motion was denied.

23bk02426, 23ap00188
Plaintiff moved for the court to find certain debts nondischargeable under §§ 523(a)(2) and (4). HELD: A portion of the debts is nondischargeable under § 523(a)2); the rest is dischargeable.

23bk12504, 23ap00379
Plaintiff moved for Summary Judgment in an adversary proceeding relating to the dischargeability of debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4). HELD: The Motion for Summary Judgment was granted. Collateral Estoppel applied to the State Court
Judgment.

24bk05367, 24ap00096
Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim due to the Defendant’s identity as an entity debtor in Subchapter V. HELD: The Motion to Dismiss was denied. In a contested confirmation in Subchapter V, debts of the kind listed in 11 U.S.C § 523 are not dischargeable for both entity and individual debtors.

23bk15233, 24ap00044
Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the Judge’s recusal or disqualification due to allegations of bias against him for his pro se status and belief that rulings in the case had been decided incorrectly. HELD: The court denied recusal or disqualification based on Liteky v. U.S., 510 U.S. 540 (1994). A party’s perceived unfavorable rulings did not constitute bias.

21bk13535
The Debtor filed a motion seeking an order of payment of her claimed homestead exemption. A Creditor objected to this payment based on the Debtor’s bad acts. The Debtor had repeatedly failed to cooperate and had caused delay in her Bankruptcy case. The Debtor had not originally claimed the $15,000 Illinois homestead exemption but had recently amended her schedule to claim it. HELD: The objection by the Creditor was overruled. The Creditor failed to provide a legitimate basis to deny the exemption. The court reviewed Law v. Siegel, 571 U.S. 415 (2014) and Illinois Law and determined under Law, that the Debtor’s bad acts did not constitute a reason to disallow the claiming of the homestead exemption.

22-09817

16-28479, 16-00705

21-05193, 23-00090

21-05193, 23-00201

22-13111

23-00004, 22-12788

22-11626, 23-00125

23-02595

22-00030, 18-02853

22-06003

21-14041, 22-00095

22-00504, 22-00096