Opinions

 

All court opinions may be accessed at no charge via PACER through the "Written Opinions" link on the Reports page. You must, however, have an account to access the report via CM/ECF or PACER.

 

Access to opinions from 1997 to present, that are PDF searchable, unrestricted & unsealed, are also available through the Government Printing Office using the Advanced Search for Government Publications. There is no login required and publications are available free of charge.


Court Opinions Database

The court's provides free access of some opinions, at the discretion of the judges, for the years 1998 to present. The results shown below are automatically displayed for all years, all judges, and all keywords/topics.

A search may be performed using the Search box above, or filtering by year, judge, and/or keyword/topic. To search for more than one judge and/or keywords/topics simultaneously, hold down the Ctrl key (or Command key) and select each item.

Keywords/Topic Date Title Description Judge
Dischargeability, Nondischargeability, Summary Judgment     12/20/2023     Christen Hagemann v. Paul Durkin     

Plaintiff was appointed guardian ad litem in defendant/debtor’s divorce case, to represent the interests of defendant’s infant daughter. At the conclusion of the divorce and custody proceedings, defendant filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy case and took the position that the guardian ad litem fees he owed were dischargeable. Plaintiff argued that the fees were in the nature of child support and therefore nondischargeable. The court ruled that under Tenth Circuit precedence, the fees were nondischargeable child support.

 

Judge David T. Thuma
Chapter 13, Exemptions, Judicial Liens - Avoidance     12/12/2023     Michael R. Evans and Kelly N. Evans     

Debtor moved to avoid creditor’s judicial lien under sec. 522(f) as impairing debtors’ homestead exemption. Debtor argued that, when considering the sec. 522(f) motion, the court should rule that certain solar panels installed on the roof of the house were fixtures, so that the purchase money security interest in the solar panels was additional indebtedness encumbering the house. The court held that the solar panels were not fixtures but remained consumer goods after installation.

Judge David T. Thuma
BAPCPA, Chapter 13, Confirmation     12/07/2023     Venitia Moreno     

The Court held that the above-median-income Debtor who has no rent or mortgage expense but who pays for cell phone service and seasonal fuel costs is entitled to deduct the entire amount of the IRS Local Housing and Utilities Standard in computing disposable income. The Chapter 13 Trustee objected to confirmation of Debtor’s chapter 13 plan asserting that the IRS Local Housing and Utilities Standard is not “applicable” to Debtor because she has no mortgage or rent expenses and, therefore, she is not entitled any deduction under the IRS Local Housing and Utilities Standard. Her fiancé pays the mortgage on the home that he owns and where they jointly reside. The Court found that the IRS Local Housing and Utilities Standard is “applicable to Debtor” because she has as least one expense covered by the Standard.

The Court then addressed the division of the IRS Local Housing and Utilities Standard on Official Form 122C-2, which is mandatory. Form 122C-2 divides the Standard into “Mortgage or Rent Expenses” and “Insurance and Operating Expenses,” with separate deductible limits, in accordance with the UST’s division of the Standard. The Court found that the IRS Local Housing and Utilities Standard as adopted by the IRS is a single category and that mandating Debtor’s use of the separate categories for “Mortgage or Rent Expenses” and “Insurance and Operating Expenses” would impermissibly conflict with the Code. Nevertheless, the Court found that Form 122C-2 is valid because Line 10 allows a debtor without a mortgage or rent expense to claim the entire amount of the IRS Local Housing and Utilities Standard if the debtor claims that the UST’s division of the IRS Local Housing and Utilities Standard is incorrect and it affects the calculation of the debtor’s monthly expenses.

Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz
Appeals, Claim Objection, Due Process, Remand, Res Judicata     12/01/2023     Las Uvas Valley Dairies     

On remand, the court held that the county did not carry its burden of proving excusable neglect for a late-filed claim for prepetition livestock taxes and that the only reason to disallow the county’s application for allowance of an administrative expense is the administrative expense bar date in the confirmed plan of reorganization.

 

Judge David T. Thuma
Automatic Stay, Chapter 13, Divorce/Separation, Proof of Claim, Res Judicata     10/27/2023     Steven D. Harrison     

Ex wife moved for stay relief in ex-husband’s chapter 13 case so she could return to state court and finalize the division of ex-husband’s retirement account. Debtor ex-husband opposed the motion, arguing that ex-wife did not get a property interest in the account, only a debt he owed her for half the value of the account. The court ruled that the divorce decree divided the retirement account so ex-wife’s half did not go into the bankruptcy estate. Stay relief granted.

Judge David T. Thuma
Administrative Claims, Attorneys Fees, Chapter 13, Employment of Professionals, Fees     10/20/2023     Angelito Uy Sepulvida and Maria Bituin Caranay     

Counsel for chapter 13 debtors filed a third fee application. The court reviewed the time spent, the results obtained, and the overall amounts billed and allowed in the case to date. The court allowed fees in about half the amount requested.

Judge David T. Thuma
Chapter 11, Extension of Time, Subchapter V     09/25/2023     Trinity Legacy Consortium, LLC     

Debtor sought a fifth extension to file a subchapter V plan. Under § 1189(b), an extension to file a subchapter V plan may only be granted if the need for the extension is due to “circumstances for which the debtor should not justly be held accountable.” The caselaw is split on whether the standard is an equitable inquiry or limited to whether the circumstances were “beyond the debtor’s control.” The Court applied the reasoning of the U.S. Supreme Court in Pioneer, which resolved a similar split in the context of “excusable neglect” in favor of an equitable inquiry, based on bankruptcy courts having broad equitable powers to balance the interests of the affected parties while guided by the overriding goal of ensuring the success of the reorganization. The Court determined that an equitable inquiry is the appropriate standard under § 1189(b) as well. The equitable inquiry should consider whether the need for the extension was within debtor’s reasonable control and may also include such things as potential prejudice to the parties, the length of the extension, the debtor’s good faith, the debtor’s progress in formulating a meaningful plan, and the views of creditors and the subchapter V trustee. After making an equitable inquiry in this case, where among other things, Debtor is participating in a mediation with major creditors, the Court concluded that circumstances existed for which Debtor should not justly be held accountable and granted the extension. 

Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz
Automatic Stay, Cause, Chapter 13, Dismissal, Filing Injunction     08/31/2023     Evan Ray Yellowman     

Mortgagee moved for stay relief under sec. 362(d)(4) in debtor’s fourth chapter 13 case in four years. The prior three cases were dismissed or converted. The court granted relief and ordered that any filing in the next two years would not impose the stay on the bank’s collateral. The court also dismissed the case, granting two dismissal motions filed by the chapter 13 trustee, because debtor did not attend his sec. 341 meeting and did not file a chapter 13 plan timely.

Judge David T. Thuma
Administrative Claims, Attorneys Fees, Chapter 13, Professionals     08/30/2023     Lance Merrill and Judith Merrill     

The Court disallowed a portion of the fees requested in chapter 13 debtor’s counsel’s first fee application, and approved counsel’s second fee application. Even though Court previously approved compensation requested in counsel’s first fee application, the Court may reexamine interlocutory interim fee applications at any time prior to final approval. Counsel’s request for compensation for work to correct counsel’s own mistakes was unreasonable and non-compensable under 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(4)(B) notwithstanding benefit to the debtors. Charging to correct counsel’s own mistakes can subject counsel to sanctions.

Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz
Administrative Claims, Attorneys Fees, Chapter 13, Fees, Professionals     08/30/2023     Jeffrey Hassell and LaDerna Hassell     

The Court disallowed a portion of the fees requested in chapter 13 debtor’s counsel’s first fee application. Counsel’s request for compensation for work to correct counsel’s own mistakes is unreasonable and non-compensable under 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(4)(B). The Court also cautioned counsel to take more care in completing the Rule 2016(b) Disclosure of Compensation in future cases. Even an inadvertent breach of the disclosure obligations can have serious consequences, including the total or partial disallowance of compensation, regardless of whether harm to creditors or the debtor is shown.

 

 

Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz

Pages