21bk05434, 21ap00117
On a creditor’s complaint seeking a determination of nondischargeability under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a) on a debt arising out of a contract dispute with an entity controlled by the debtor over renovations that entity had or should have performed, held: The creditor has failed to elevate its complaint beyond that of a simple contract dispute. The obligations owed by the creditor were ones pursuant to a contract, the propriety of which the creditor does not challenge. Payments made by the creditor were pursuant to that contract. While it does appear that the debtor and the debtor’s entity thereby made certain misrepresentations in the course of the contract, payments were not obtained by such misrepresentations so as to satisfy 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). Nothing in the Supreme Court’s recent decision of Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, 598 U.S. 69 (2023), upsets the case law in this regard. Further, the creditor has failed to establish the elements of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4). While the court does not condone the sloppy business practices of the debtor and the puffery engaged in in his business relationship with the creditor, those alone are not enough to satisfy the statute. As a result, judgment in favor of the debtor will be entered on all existing counts of the complaint.

20bk21625
The matter before the court consists of four independent, but inter-related disputes.  The Debtor seeks both to have his plan of reorganization confirmed and retroactive approval of postpetition transfers of estate assets.  The official committee of unsecured creditors seeks to have the case converted or dismissed.  The United States Trustee seeks to have a chapter 11 trustee appointed.  For the reasons explained in the Memorandum Decision but mostly centered around the Debtor’s good faith, the court denies both of the Debtor’s requests and grants the United States Trustee’s.  Having granted that latter request, the court moots the committee’s request.

18bk24763
On the remand from the District Court of the court’s disallowance of a claim for attorney’s fees and costs arising from a prepetition judgment against the debtor and upon further briefing and fully competing claims brought by the judgment creditor (the attorney’s prepetition client), held:  Having been given an unwarranted second chance to submit a sufficient claim in the chapter 7 case, the attorney/claimant has established that he has an unsecured claim against the debtor’s estate.  The evidence submitted to the court is not in dispute, though is insufficient to establish a secured claim against the debtor or the bankruptcy estate.  The claim of the judgment creditor is, on the other hand, fully secured.  As a result, the attorney’s claim is allowed solely as an unsecured claim and the judgment creditor’s is allowed as a secured one, in the amounts set forth in the Memorandum Decision.

21bk03589, 22ap00001
Upon the objection to the debtor’s exemption claimed in his home, the adversary complaint seeking to avoid fraudulent transfer of the debtor’s home and to sell the debtor’s spouse’s interest in the home and the motion to reopen evidence to take judicial notice, all brought by the chapter 7 trustee, held:  The chapter 7 trustee has proven that the debtor’s prepetition transfer of his interest in his home from joint tenancy to tenancy in the entirety was fraudulent and thus judgment is entered in favor of the trustee and the transfer is avoided.  The debtor’s claim of 100% exemption in his home based on holding tenancy in the entirety is thus not proper and the trustee’s objection to the debtor’s exemption in his home is sustained.  The trustee’s motion to reopen evidence to take judicial notice is granted; however, with the additional evidence, the trustee’s claim in the adversary to sell the debtor’s spouse’s interest still fails because the trustee has failed to satisfy all elements of 11 U.S.C. § 363(h) and judgment is entered in favor of the Defendants with respect to the trustee’s request to sell the debtor’s spouse’s interest therein.

23bk03279, 23ap00127
Upon the debtor/defendant’s motion to dismiss a complaint seeking a determination of nondischargeability of alleged debt under three different theories under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2) against a corporate subchapter V debtor, held:  Section 523(a) does not apply to corporate debtors proceeding under subchapter V of chapter 11.  Such corporate debtors are treated no different than corporate debtors proceeding under the remainder of chapter 11.  Inartful language by Congress and supposition as to congressional intent is not sufficient to enact a major change in the handling of cases under the Bankruptcy Code.  As a result, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and must be dismissed, with prejudice.  The debtor/defendant’s motion to dismiss is therefore GRANTED.

22bk06249
On the motion of a postpetition recipient by assignment of delinquent tax claim against property of the above-captioned debtor’s bankruptcy estate, said motion seeking to vacate confirmation of the debtor’s chapter 13 plan alleging that no notice thereof was given to the recipient, held:  Despite an attempt by the recipient to characterize this matter as a constitutional notice one, this matter is more characterized by a creditor’s failure to notify the debtor or the court of a change in ownership of a claim.  Neither the debtor nor the court can reliably ensure the rights of a party who fails to safeguard the same.  The recipient is charged with the notice given to the assignor and, absent acting to either file a notice of transfer of claim or a claim in its own right, has no reasonable expectation that a debtor will know of such transfers and be able to revise notices to accommodate the same.  

For these reasons, the motion is DENIED.

20bk21625
On the Official Unsecured Creditors’ Committee’s objection to the claim of Matthew Spiegel, held: Matthew Spiegel as the claimant failed to satisfy his burden of entitlement to a general unsecured claim of $475,000.00 from the debtor’s (his father) estate. At the evidentiary hearing, Matthew Spiegel did not demonstrate an express contract, contract implied in fact or contract implied in law existed and no other equitable ground was applicable to support an obligation to repay the amount allegedly loaned to the debtor prepetition. For these reasons, the Committee’s objection is SUSTAINED.