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's Web Site Opinions Database

The court's web site 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
Contract Interpretation, Proof of Claim     08/20/2014     Picaho Hills Utility Company, Inc.     

Debtor objected to creditor's proof of claim, arguing that its obligation to creditor was not enforceable due to prior ruling of the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission.  After examining the parties’ agreement and the Commission’s ruling, the Court overruled Debtor’s objection.proofpro

Judge David T. Thuma
Adversary Proceedings - Procedural Matters, Agency Liability, Summary Judgment     08/06/2014     Clark v. Envoy Mortgage, Ltd.     

"Debtor asserted claims against loan broker/lender for breach of contract, negligence, and violation of the Unfair Trade Practices Act, all based on defendant's failure to close a reverse mortgage loan.  Defendant moved for summary judgment on all counts, alleging no material facts in dispute.  The court ruled that numerous disputed facts prevented entry of summary judgment.  The court also ruled, however, that plaintiff should amend her complaint to cure a number of pleading deficiencies."

Judge David T. Thuma
Collateral Estoppel, Dischargeability, Nondischargeability, Summary Judgment     07/30/2014     Baldwin v. Phillips     

Creditor sought a determination that debtor's obligations to him were nondischargeable under Sec. 523(a)(5) or (a)(15).  The court granted summary judgment on the nondischargeability issue, based on the undisputed fact that the judgments were entered by the state court in connection with the divorce proceeding between creditor and debtor.  The court reserved judgment in two discrete areas on the amount of the claim.

Judge David T. Thuma
Collateral Estoppel, Confirmation, Res Judicata, Summary Judgment     07/21/2014     Angela R. Parra     

Debtor's ex-husband objected to debtor's chapter 13 plan, arguing inter alia that his claim is a priority claim (domestic support obligation) in an amount sufficient to require denial of plan confirmation. Debtor argued that the claim was a general unsecured claim.  Ex-husband filed a motion for summary judgment on the priority issue, attaching a ruling from the state court on the issue.  Debtor did not respond.  The court held that the state court judgment did not satisfy the requirements of issue or claim preclusion, so the summary judgment motion could not be granted.

Judge David T. Thuma
Miscellaneous     07/08/2014     Roman Catholic Church of the Diocese fo Gallup, Jointly Administered with Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church of the Diocese of Gallup     

Debtor sought Rule 2004 exam of third party's financial statements and insurance coverage, as well as similar information for alleged affiliates.  The court allowed the debtor to obtain insurance information from the third party, and to obtain certain financial information.that appeared to be publicly available.  The court denied the other requested relief.

Judge David T. Thuma
Automatic Stay, Damages, Relief from Stay, Stay Violation     07/03/2014     Escobedo v. Davis et al     

Debtor sought damages for intentional stay violation, while creditor sought relief from the stay.  After trial the court held that the creditor willfully violated the automatic stay, and awarded debtor actual and punitive damages.  The court then modified the automatic stay to allow the creditor to pursue her rights in state court.

Judge David T. Thuma
Dischargeability, Dismissal, Due Process, Service, Summary Judgment     07/03/2014     Brown v. Humphrey     

Defendant filed motion to dismiss nondischargeability action because it was filed after the deadline.  Plaintiff responded that she was not given notice of the bankruptcy case until after the deadline.  The court ruled that it would treat the motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment because the response relied upon documents outside of the pleadings.  The court gave the defendant additional time to support its position on summary judgment.  The court also put the parties on notice that it would consider granting summary judgment on the issue to plaintiff, pursuant to Rule 56(f).

Judge David T. Thuma
Proof of Claim, Reconsideration, Service, Standing     06/19/2014     Sarah J. Quintero     

Debtor objected to creditor claim in a solvent chapter 7 estate. Trustee responded, defending the claim.  Creditor did not respond.  The court held that the trustee had standing to defend the claim and that the claim objection could not be sustained for procedural and substantive reasons.

Judge David T. Thuma
Discharge     06/12/2014     Kirtland Federal Credit Union v. Mesibov     

Creditor brought 727(a)(4) action, claiming that debtor made false  statements about her income.  After trial the court ruled that the statements were more in the nature of honest mistakes rather than intentionally false, and would not have changed the result of the Means Test.  Judgment for Debtor.

Judge David T. Thuma
Collateral Estoppel, Dischargeability, Res Judicata, Summary Judgment     06/12/2014     Duff et al v. Ayala     

Plaintiff moved for summary judgment in its Sec. 523(a)(6) action, based on a prior state court judgment.  The Court held that claim preclusion did not apply, but that issue preclusion did apply.  The Court then compared the elements of a 523(a)(6) action with the findings of the state court, and determined that issue preclusion left some key facts undetermined.  The Court denied summary judgment but limited the facts to be litigated at trial to those that were not determined by the prior state court judgment.

Judge David T. Thuma

Pages