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, Sham Affidavit | 01/24/2020 | Gorence & Oliveros, P.C., TMP Legal, LLC, Adam Griego, and Elijah Haukereid v. David Robert Chavez, Jr. |
The Court granted summary judgment as to one plaintiff on a non- dischargeability claim under 523(a)(6) for willful and malicious injury. To the extent Defendant’s affidavit contradicted admissions contained in Defendant’s prior plea agreement, the affidavit would be disregarded as a sham affidavit. Default judgment had no issue preclusive effect. Fact issues precluded summary judgment as to the other plaintiff. |
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Disclosure Statement, Jurisdiction | 01/21/2020 | Michele Geraldine Ament |
The Court determined that it has jurisdiction to divide community property notwithstanding a pending dissolution of marriage proceeding in which property division has not yet been determined. The Court therefore did not deny approval of the debtor’s disclosure statement based on alleged facial unconfirmability of plan that proposes to divide community property. The Court required debtor to amend disclosure statement provide adequate information. The Court also discussed abstention.
|
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Adequate Protection, Automatic Stay | 01/16/2020 | Michele Geraldine Ament |
The Court granted, in part, creditors motion for relief from stay as to certain real property, and denied the creditor’s motion for relief from stay as to other real property and two vehicles, which were necessary to debtor’s reorganization efforts, on the condition that the debtor make adequate protection payments to the creditor.
|
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Adversary, Trustee | 01/09/2020 | Dean L. Horton and Frances H. Horton |
Liquidating Trustee in a related bankruptcy case sought leave to bring constructive trust action against individual debtors’ bankruptcy estate’s most valuable asset—the debtors’ residence. Debtors and the chapter 7 trustee objected, arguing that the “Barton doctrine” and the automatic stay bar the claim. The Court holds that neither the Barton doctrine nor the automatic stay prevents the liquidating trustee from bringing in rem action against the chapter 7 trustee. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Automatic Stay, Redemption | 01/09/2020 | Allison Katherine Fitzsimmons |
Creditor was entitled to recover compensatory damages for willful violation of the automatic stay by another creditor. The Court rejected the argument that the stay terminated by operation of law because the debtor failed to complete her intended redemption of a vehicle within a certain time. The Court denied the creditor’s request for punitive damages. |
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Chapter 11, Fees, Trustee | 12/24/2019 | MBF Inspection Services, Inc., |
The Court granted motion for entry of a final decree over the objection of the U.S. Trustee’s Office that a final decree was inappropriate because the estate had not been fully administered. The Court reached this conclusion after considering the several factors listed in the 1991 Advisory Committee notes to BR 3022 and the significant burden on the Debtor of the U.S. Trustee’s fees which were charged at the much higher “alternative” rate set forth in 28 U.S.C. Section 1930(a)(6)(B).
|
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Administrative Claims, Chapter 11, Chapter 12, Dismissal or Conversion, Settlement | 12/19/2019 | Jackie Don Roberts and Vickie Mae Roberts |
Debtors, who are farmers, filed for bankruptcy under chapter 11 because their aggregate debt exceeded the then-applicable debt limit in Section 108(18) and rendered them ineligible to file a chapter 12 case. When the Family Farmer Relief Act raised the debt limit to $10 million, debtors became eligible for chapter 12. After a period of contentious litigation, Debtors and their creditors negotiated a settlement, which included an agreement that Debtors would convert their case from chapter 11 to chapter 12. Debtors’ former attorney, an administrative claimant, filed the only objection to conversion. The Court overruled the objection on the ground that the bases therefor were unfounded. The Court granted Debtors’ motion to convert based on its finding that conversion was fair and equitable to all parties.
|
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Dischargeability | 12/17/2019 | Marie J. Holguin v. National Collegiate Student Loan Truste 2006-2, a Delaware Statutory Trust, |
Although the Court determined that a non-profit institution’s guaranty of a student loan program satisfies the “funded” requirement for non-dischargeability of student loan debt under § 523(a)(8)(A)(i), the Court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that defendant did not establish the chain of title for the student loan at issue and did not establish that the non-profit’s guaranty was in effect at the time the loan was granted. |
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Default Judgment, Nondischargeability, Summary Judgment | 12/13/2019 | Gretchen Welch v. David Tracy Giron |
Plaintiff moved for summary judgment, asking that her California state default judgment against debtor-defendant (domesticated in New Mexico) be found to be nondischargeable. The Court denies plaintiff’s motion because while the state court judgment definitively established the amount of the debt, the Court will not grant issue preclusive effect to the state court judgment, and a judgment for plaintiff would be inequitable under these facts.
|
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Abandonment, Assumption and Rejection, Due Process, Jurisdiction, Valuation | 12/04/2019 | Leobardo Munoz and Maria Elena Munoz |
Debtors filed motion to assume a real estate contract for the purchase of an unimproved lot. In a 2008 chapter 7 case, Debtors failed to disclose their interest in the real estate contract which, therefore, remained property of the chapter 7 estate. If Debtors wish to assume the real estate contract, they must re-open the 2008 chapter 7 case, amend their schedules, and seek abandonment of the real estate contract. In the present case, moreover, Debtors failed to comply with service-of-process rules and thereby deprived the owner of the unimproved lot notice of the bankruptcy and of the motion to assume. Without proper service of process, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the property owner. The motion to assume is denied.
|
Judge David T. Thuma |