Judge LaShonda A. Hunt - Opinions

Judge LaShonda A. Hunt

In re: Isidro M. Alcantar
September 10, 2021

19bk24926
Chapter 7 debtor who already received his discharge moved to convert to a chapter 13 and repay his discharged debts without seeking to vacate the discharge order.  Relief was denied because debtor could not demonstrate statutory eligibility to be in a chapter 13 or good-faith motives.

13bk04868
Debtors reopened their chapter 7 case and moved for a finding of civil contempt against the Illinois Department of Revenue for collecting state tax debts they contend were discharged.  The motion will be denied, as the court finds the tax liability, interest, and four of the five assessed penalties nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(1)(B)(i) and 523(a)(7)(B).  Regarding the one discharged penalty, IDOR’s collection efforts were objectively reasonable and for such an inconsequential amount that neither a finding of contempt nor the imposition of sanctions is warranted.

 

17bk16894, 18ap00764
Plaintiff sought to revoke the chapter 7 discharge of debtor/defendant, his former business partner who omitted information from his Statement of Financial Affairs about company assets he possessed at the time of the bankruptcy filing.  Following a trial, the court held that plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proof with respect to fraudulent intent as required under 11 U.S.C. § 727(d)(1).

18bk24734
Chapter 7 Trustee sought turnover of proceeds from debtors’ prepetition sale of their homestead, that they failed to reinvest before the one-year time limit expired.  Because the Trustee did not timely object to the exemption and the snapshot rule governs, the motion to compel turnover of funds is denied.

18bk18603
The standing chapter 13 trustee moved to modify the debtors’ confirmed plan to account for non-exempt funds received from a post-petition personal injury claim.  Debtors objected to any requirement to turn over payments after the 5-year maximum plan term in 11 U.S.C. § 1329(c) expires.  The court overruled the objection and granted the relief as requested.

In re: Charles V. Cook, Sr.
December 17, 2019

14bk36424
Following a trial on motions for sanctions and examination of fees filed by the United States Trustee against a debt relief agency, its principals, and counsel, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 526, 11 U.S.C. § 329, and 11 U.S.C. § 105, the court imposes a civil penalty for engaging in a pattern and practice of inaccurate bankruptcy disclosures, orders disgorgement of attorney fees, and awards reasonable attorney fees and costs to the UST.  No sanctions are warranted against individual counsel.

14bk33271, 14ap00859
Following trial on an adversary complaint objecting to dischargeability under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) and § 523 (a)(6), the court held that the creditor failed to meet its burden of establishing that the defendant/debtor acted with intent to defraud or harm creditors.

19bk001454
Secured creditor objected to confirmation of debtor’s Chapter 13 plan, requiring supplemental language be included in Section 8.1 to address claims treated in Section 3.1 of the plan. Although the debtor eventually amended the plan as requested, the court held that the creditor’s proposed language was inconsistent with the requirements of 11 U.S.C. 1325(a) and therefore the plan could not be confirmed.

14bk008893, 16ap00195
At issue is whether the law in this Circuit holds that only unpaid new value can be used by a creditor to reduce preference liability under 11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(4)(B). The court concludes the answer to that question is yes.

17bk14970
Debtor-company has been sued by consumers who allegedly ingested contaminated nut-alternative products.  The Chapter 7 Trustee seeks to resolve those tort claims with a global settlement that channels the proceeds from commercial liability policies issued by two insurers into a fund for distribution to the injured parties and enjoins any further claims under the policies.  Several vendors (who are additional insureds) objected to the breadth of the injunction, as impairing their contractual rights to pursue claims against the insurer.  The court holds that the proposed injunction cannot be approved.

Pages