Opinions Not Selected for Publication
[Click here for Opinions Selected for Publication]
Opinions Not Selected for Publication*:
(Opinions contained on this
page are included for information only and are intended for the interest of local
attorneys and practitioners of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado)
In re: Michael J. Mikelson, Bankruptcy Case No. 13-21830ABC.
A Chapter 13 debtor presented a plan which proposed to preclude his student loan creditor from receiving any distribution under the plan while debtor's other unsecured creditors would be paid 100% of their claims. The debtor's liquidation analysis demonstrated that the student loan creditors, along with other unsecured creditors would be paid a significant percentage of their claims if the case was liquidated under Chapter 7. The Court denied confirmation of debtor's plan unless debtor obtained and filed the express written consent of the student loan creditor to such treatment proposed under the plan.
Posted: 10/3/2014 7:15:22 AM
In re: Stanley Robert Ostrander and Nancy Ostrander, Bankruptcy Case No. 14-17534ABC.
Chapter 7 debtors claimed an exemption under C.R.S. §13-54-102(1)(n) in the proceeds of a claim for a personal injury action. The Chapter 7 Trustee objected to debtors' claim of exemption to the extent any award in that action would be attributable to medical or collection costs incurred in connection with the personal injury. The Court overruled the Trustee's objection holding that the exception for medical and collection costs of C.R.S. §13-54-102(1)(n) does not reduce the debtors' exemption vis a vis the Trustee or property of the bankruptcy estate.
Posted: 10/3/2014 7:12:23 AM
In re Abeyta, Case No. 11-35720 ABC, Docket #51, (Bankr. D. Colo. July 29, 2014) Postconfirmation modification; 11 U.S.C. § 1329.
Debtors filed a motion to modify their confirmed plan alleging that their household income had decreased. The Court's review of debtors' proposed modified plan revealed that debtors sought to bifurcate the claim of a secured creditor not previously provided for in their confirmed plan. Judge Campbell denied debtors' motion to modify ruling that section 1329 does not permit debtors to bring within the reach of their plan a creditor not previously provided for in their confirmed plan.
Posted: 8/27/2014 11:58:04 AM
In re Moore; Case No. 13-30251 HRT; Order entered May 29, 2014 (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-54-102(1)(j)(II); increased motor vehicle exemption for debtors with a disabled dependent).
The Debtors have a young child who is disabled and they claimed the enhanced motor vehicle exemption under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-54-102(1)(j)(II) for two motor vehicles based on their son's disability. Trustee asked the Court to disallow the exemption for one of the vehicles because only one of them was necessary to provide transportation for their disabled son. The Court found that amendments to the exemption statute in 2000 deleted the prior requirement that the exempt vehicle be used "for the purpose of obtaining medical care for [the debtor] or his elderly or disabled dependent." Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-54-102(1)(j)(II)(A) (1999). The Court found that the current statutory language allows the exemption to a debtor who has a disabled dependent with no requirement that the exempt vehicle be used for medical transportation purposes. Accordingly, the Court denied the Trustee's objection.
Posted: 7/10/2014 8:19:11 AM
Florado Partners, Inc. v. Gollehon (In re Gollehon), Adversary No. 11-01298 HRT, Chapter 7; Order entered June 25, 2014 (Denial of discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727)
The Debtor is a real estate broker and developer and an entrepreneur who moved substantial sums of money among several bank accounts that he controlled, some in the names of corporate entities he managed, and some in the name of foreign citizens. The Court found that the Debtor (1) transferred property of his estate within one year prior to his bankruptcy filing, with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors; (2) failed to maintain and preserve adequate records, which made it impossible to ascertain his financial condition and material business transactions; (3) knowingly made false oaths on his schedules and at his § 341 meeting; and (4) failed to explain satisfactorily a loss of assets and deficiency of his assets to meet his liabilities. The Court denied the Debtor's discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2)(A), (a)(3), (a)(4)(A), and (a)(5).
Posted: 7/10/2014 8:14:58 AM
Dennis W. King v. Ark Woodworks, Inc. and Nasser Haji-Sarvestani (In re Willis); Adversary Case No. 13-01503 HRT; Order entered June 25, 2014 (denial of jurisdiction to hear collection action).
Trustee seeks to recover an account receivable from Defendants where ownership of the receivable is in dispute. The Court declined to hear the matter because the dispute is substantively a collection action under state law. Based on Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipeline Co., 459 U.S. 813 (1982), this is a non-core matter. Applying the discretionary abstention factors articulated in In re Tuscon Estates, Inc., 912 F.2d 1162, 1167 (9th Cir. 1990), will abstain and allow the matter to be heard by the state court which is the more appropriate forum.
Posted: 6/26/2014 7:37:13 AM
[Return to Top]
*All opinions will be removed after 180 days