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
Conversion, Trustee, Valuation     11/20/2020     Roy Mitchell Waggoner and Jewel Kay Waggoner     

Chapter 7 trustee sought order compelling debtor to turn over three pieces of irrigation equipment that trustee claimed was part of the bankruptcy estate.  The Court held a trial on the merits and concluded that the trustee’s motion for turnover must be denied. Under Section 348(f)(1)(A) equipment acquired by debtor during chapter 13 case prior to conversion to chapter 7 was not property of chapter 7 estate, and therefore not subject to turnover. Equipment that debtor acquired and disposed of prepetition was not property of the chapter 13 or chapter 7 estate, and therefore was not subject to turnover. Equipment that debtor sold prepetition, retained possession of after the conversion date, and delivered to the buyer during chapter 7 case was property of chapter 7 estate subject to turnover, but because evidence of the property’s value was insufficient and the whereabouts of the equipment is unknown, neither the equipment nor its value could be turned over to trustee.  

Judge David T. Thuma
Adversary, Damages, Default Judgment, Nondischargeability, Punitive Damages     11/06/2020     Gretchen Welch v. David Tracy Giron     

Plaintiff sued Defendant for declaration that damages resulting from Defendant’s clouding of Plaintiff’s title, liquidated in a California state court default judgment, were nondischargeable under §§ 523(a)(2), (4), or (6). The Court did not determine the default judgment nondischargeable, but instead found and concluded that Defendant’s actions were willful and malicious, and that actual proved damages and $25,000 in punitive damages were therefore nondischargeable under § 523(a)(6).

 

Judge David T. Thuma
Confirmation, Good Faith, Social Security     10/29/2020     Jimmie Thad Stuteville     

A creditor objected to confirmation of Debtor’s plan of reorganization on the ground that it was not feasible because Debtor’s income derived in part from Social Security benefits for his minor son. The Court concluded that it could consider Debtor’s son’s Social Security benefits as part of Debtor’s income when determining whether Debtor’s plan was feasible, and that Debtor’s plan was feasible. The creditor also argued that the plan was not proposed in good faith because Debtor proposed to retain and continue to pay for a truck that is expensive to maintain and operate. The Court found and concluded that, under the circumstances, the truck is not a luxury item and that Debtor proposed the plan in good faith.

 

Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz
Adversary, Damages, Summary Judgment     10/23/2020     Edward Mazel et al v. Las Cruces Abstract and Title Company     

Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendants were professionally negligent for failing to disclose to Plaintiffs a mortgage clouding title in a real estate transaction. The Court granted Defendants motion, holding that Plaintiffs were aware of the mortgage prior to closing and that Defendants’ nondisclosure of the mortgage was not the proximate cause of any damages Plaintiffs may have incurred.

Judge David T. Thuma
Adversary, Dischargeability, Summary Judgment     10/16/2020     Jill Stevenson v. Educational Credit Management Corporation     

Debtor filed a complaint seeking to discharge her student loans based on a theory of undue hardship. Debtor, who is participating in an income based repayment plan, based her undue hardship complaint primarily on the potential tax consequences that may arise if the balance of her student loan debt is discharged at the end of her repayment term. Based on Debtor’s interrogatory responses, in which she appeared to concede that she could afford her monthly repayment obligation, Defendant sought summary judgment on the ground that Debtor cannot satisfy the Brunner test. Defendant is entitled to partial summary judgment that the potential tax consequences of student loan debt forgiveness, by themselves, are not enough to render the debt dischargeable. Because Debtor’s response to the summary judgment motion raised genuine issues of material fact about whether Debtor can afford her monthly repayment obligation, the balance of the motion is denied.

Judge David T. Thuma
Chapter 11, Fraudulent Transfers, Property of the Estate, Standing, Turnover     10/09/2020     Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of Santa Fe     

The UCC moved for authority to bring fraudulent transfer and turnover claims against parties after the Debtor-in-possession refused to do so. The Court concluded that it was within the Court’s power and was appropriate to grant derivative standing to the UCC to assert the claims, and that potential affirmative defenses would not forestall the UCC at this stage but could be considered if and when the Court reaches the merits of the UCC’s claims.

Judge David T. Thuma
Automatic Stay, Chapter 13, Miscellaneous, Statutory Construction     10/02/2020     Sandra Joyce McGrath and Dale Allen Rogers     

Debtors and their mortgage lender disputed whether the Court should follow a 10th Circuit BAP decision and hold that, per 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3), Debtors’ stay terminated only with respect to actions taken against the Debtors, or whether the Court should follow case law in other circuits holding that the stay terminated with respect to estate property as well. The Court determined (1) that 10th Circuit BAP decisions, while persuasive, cannot bind bankruptcy courts within the circuit, and (2) that based on statutory interpretation and bankruptcy policy, the stay did not terminate with respect to estate property.

 

Judge David T. Thuma
Administrative Claims, Chapter 11, Classification of Claims, Extension of Time, Res Judicata     09/18/2020     Las Uvas Valley Dairies     

Creditor moved to amend its proof of claim after the claims bar date and to file an application for administrative expenses post plan confirmation. The Court denied the motion and application, finding that (1) whether the creditor’s motion was treated as a request to amend or a request to file a new claim, equitable considerations barred the action, and (2) the terms of the plan and confirmation order were res judicata and the creditor could not tardily file an application for administrative expenses, notwithstanding statutory authority that would allow such application.

 

Judge David T. Thuma
Costs, Dischargeability, Divorce/Separation, Separation Agreement     09/11/2020     Heather McDonald v. Stephen McDonald     

In connection with their divorce, Plaintiff Heather McDonald and Debtor/Defendant Stephen McDonald entered into a marriage settlement agreement (“MSA)” in which Debtor agreed to assume certain debts (the “Debts”). Debtor thereafter filed Bankruptcy Case No. 20-10755 and ultimately the Court granted Debtor a discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727. When Debtor did not pay the Debts, Plaintiff filed an adversary complaint seeking a determination that the Debts are non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15). The Court held that, although Debtor’s obligations to the creditors were discharged under § 727, his obligations to Plaintiff under the MSA were not, and that, pursuant to the MSA, Plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement of the amounts paid on Debtor’s behalf. The Court also granted in part Plaintiff’s request for costs and ordered Debtor to pay a portion of the filing fee for the adversary proceeding.

 

Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz
Automatic Stay, Injunctions, Relief from Stay, Sanctions     09/08/2020     Motiva Performance Engineering, LLC     

Creditor sought a comfort order seeking a determination that the automatic stay did not prohibit him from pursuing contempt proceedings in state court against non-debtor codefendants for allegedly violating the state court’s prepetition preliminary injunction.   The Court held that the automatic stay does not apply to the non-debtor codefendants.  If automatic stay did apply, however, cause exists to allow creditor to proceed.

 

Judge David T. Thuma

Pages