OPINION THOMAS H. FULTON, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judge. This appeal arises from two orders entered by the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio. The first order dismissed Carl E. Pertuset and Vera Pertuset's ("the Debtors") Chapter 12 case with prejudice for a period of two years and denied confirmation of their proposed Chapter 12 plan. This order also denied the Debtors' oral motion to continue the confirmation hearing and several of the Debtors' pro se evidentiary...
OPINION GEORGE W. EMERSON, Jr., Bankruptcy Judge. At issue in this appeal is a November 23, 2011 decision in which the bankruptcy court determined that an unscheduled asset which the chapter 7 trustee had partially administered should be deemed abandoned to the debtor's ex-wife pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 554(c) and (d). In so doing, the bankruptcy court relied on the "[u]nless the court orders otherwise" language found within 554(c) and (d) and on the unique procedural and factual...
OPINION C. KATHRYN PRESTON, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judge. At issue in this appeal is whether the debtor received reasonably equivalent value when she transferred property to her husband in a pre-petition separation agreement which was incorporated into a marriage dissolution decree. The chapter 7 trustee alleged that she did not and that the transfer was avoidable under 11 U.S.C. 548(a)(1)(B) and Ohio Revised Code 1336.05. The bankruptcy court agreed with the trustee, and entered...
OPINION ARTHUR I. HARRIS, Bankruptcy Judge. This appeal arises from a bankruptcy court order in which the bankruptcy court concluded that, for purposes of determining the value of the secured portion of the claims of Bank of America, N.A. ("Bank") pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 506(a), a determination of the fair market value of various apartment complexes included consideration of the remaining federal low-income housing tax credits. In determining the value of the real property, the bankruptcy...
OPINION THOMAS H. FULTON, Bankruptcy Judge. Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Inc. ("Appellant") appeals the grant of summary judgment by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky (the "Bankruptcy Court") to Maxie E. Higgason, Jr., Chapter 7 Trustee ("Appellee") for Debtor William W. Pierce, Jr. ("Debtor"), which avoids Appellant's lien on Debtor's manufactured home under 11 U.S.C. 544. ISSUES ON APPEAL Although Appellant ostensibly raises five issues on appeal, those...
OPINION SHEA-STONUM, Bankruptcy Judge. Kellie Ward Smyth (the "Debtor") appeals from the bankruptcy court's order finding the Debtor's student loans had not been discharged in her no asset Chapter 7 case and denying the Debtor's motion to reopen her case to pursue an alleged violation of the discharge injunction by the holders of her student loans. I. ISSUES ON APPEAL The issue raised in this appeal is whether the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in denying the Debtor's motion to...
OPINION C. KATHRYN PRESTON, Bankruptcy Judge. The appellants in this matter, Marilyn Polster and Richard D. Eisenberg (collectively "the Appellants"), appeal an order of the bankruptcy court entered February 4, 2011 (the "Sanctions Order"), imposing sanctions against them in the amount of $4405.23 for their willful violation of the automatic stay. The sanctions are based on an earlier order in which the bankruptcy court found the Appellants in contempt for continuing to prosecute a state-...
OPINION MARCI B. McIVOR, Chief Judge. Josiah L. Mason, Chapter 7 Trustee ("Trustee"), appeals an order of the bankruptcy court dismissing the Trustee's adversary complaint against Michael Joseph Szerwinski and Donna Maria Szerwinski (the "Debtors"), PNC Bank (f/k/a National City Bank) ("Bank"), and Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District ("Conservancy District"). The bankruptcy court dismissed the Trustee's complaint based on its finding that the security interest held by the Bank in Debtors'...
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION OPINION GEORGE W. EMERSON, Jr., Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judge. CNAC Motor Car Credit Co. appeals an order of the bankruptcy court granting Steven M. Perales' motion to redeem his 2002 Dodge Neon for a lump sum of $1,400. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the bankruptcy court's order. I. ISSUE ON APPEAL The issue presented by this appeal is whether the bankruptcy court erred in granting the Debtor's motion to redeem his personal use vehicle...
OPINION C. KATHRYN PRESTON, Bankruptcy Judge. At issue in this appeal is whether the debtor received reasonably equivalent value when she transferred property to her husband in a pre-petition separation agreement which was incorporated into a marriage dissolution decree. The chapter 7 trustee alleged that she did not and that the transfer was avoidable under 11 U.S.C. 548(a)(1)(B) and Ohio Revised Code 1336.05. The bankruptcy court agreed with the trustee, and entered judgment in favor of...
In Michigan Surgery Investment, LLC v. Arman, 627 F.3d 572 (6th Cir.2010), the Sixth Circuit set forth three factors to be considered in determining whether a court abused its discretion in dismissing a complaint with prejudice in response to a plaintiff's request for dismissal without prejudice.
, In the Motion to Dismiss, Appellee asserted that Debtor lacked good faith in *913 filing her chapter 11 petition and, in filing three unsuccessful petitions for relief, Debtor was abusing the bankruptcy process and asked that Debtor's case be dismissed for cause. 9072-1, titled Orders
The Trustee argued that the mortgage did not create a perfected security interest in the cottage because the cottage is a chattel and an interest in chattel can only be perfected by the filing of a financing statement with the Ohio Secretary of State. property ..., Ohio Rev.Code ยง 1309.502(c).
459 (2012), In re Kellie Ward SMYTH, Debtor., United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit.I. ISSUES ON APPEAL, The issue raised in this appeal is whether the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in denying the Debtor's motion to reopen her bankruptcy case.
, Despite the bankruptcy court's indication at the November 2007 hearing that a sanctions order would be issued, it was not until the Debtor filed a motion on October 27, 2010 (Sanctions Motion) that the bankruptcy court took up the issue of the appropriate sanctions. Cook, 134 F.3d at 774.
