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
Chapter 11, Confirmation     12/09/2021     S-Tek 1, LLC     

A separately classified undersecured creditor making the § 1111(b) election to treat its entire claim as secured does not automatically forfeit its right to vote its secured claim. If its secured claim is impaired under the plan, such creditor making the § 1111(b) election may vote its impaired secured claim to accept or reject the debtor’s plan and only relinquishes its right to vote what would otherwise be its unsecured deficiency claim. 

Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz
Valuation     12/09/2021     S-Tek 1, LLC     

For purposes of plan confirmation, collateral a debtor will retain for its post-confirmation busines should be valued under § 506(a) as of or near the date of the confirmation hearing, although the Court left open the possibility of using a different date in unusual circumstances.

 

Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz
Claim Objection     12/06/2021     Trucking & Contracting Services     

The Court sustained the debtor’s objection to creditor’s claim and disallowed the claim in its entirety. Creditor did not meet its burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence (or even by a preponderance of the evidence) that a scrivener’s error in a guaranty agreement identifying a non-debtor entity in the signature block was the result of the parties’ mutual mistake sufficient to warrant reformation of the agreement under New Mexico law.

 

Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz
Adversary Proceedings - Procedural Matters, Avoidance Actions, Claim Preclusion, Default Judgment     12/03/2021     Philip J. Montoya v. Sheaneh Sattari     

 

In successive motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), Defendant sought to set aside a default judgment entered against her in favor of the chapter 7 trustee in an avoidance action. Since the first motion was denied without prejudice, the trustee’s argument that the present motion is barred by claim preclusion fails. Finding that Defendant did not show excusable neglect for failing to file an answer or otherwise respond to the complaint, the motion, brought pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1), is denied on the merits.

Judge David T. Thuma
Adversary, Chapter 13, Dischargeability, Divorce/Separation     11/24/2021     Darrell J. Newton v. Josephine M. Baglio et al     

Plaintiff Darrell Newton and Defendant Josephine Baglio agreed to the entry of a final decree dissolving their marriage. The decree, which apportioned their community property, included an equal division of Plaintiff’s pension plan. Plaintiff subsequently defaulted under the final decree in a number of material respects. After repeated attempts to get Plaintiff to pay as agreed, the divorce court entered a money judgment against Plaintiff and ordered that Plaintiff’s right to receive half the pension plan payments be assigned to Defendant, thereby increasing her interest in the plan to 100%. Plaintiff brought this adversary proceeding against Defendant, seeking to avoid the assignment as either a preferential transfer or a judicial lien impairing an exemption. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the debt is a domestic support obligation that cannot be avoided as a preference or judicial lien. Alternatively, Defendant disputed whether the assignment of Plaintiff’s pension was actually a judicial lien. The Court denied Defendant’s motion, reasoning there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the debt was a DSO and whether the assignment was a judicial lien.

Judge David T. Thuma
Adversary Proceedings - Procedural Matters, Evidence     11/19/2021     Taeki Martin v. Ramin Zamani-Zadeh     

As evidence at a trial of her nondischargeability claim, Plaintiff seeks to admit an audio recording of a state court trial at which Defendant did not appear. Evaluating the matter under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(1), the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s recorded testimony is admissible at trial. The recorded testimony of the remaining witnesses will not be admitted.

Judge David T. Thuma
Adversary Proceedings - Procedural Matters, Attorneys Fees, Discovery     11/19/2021     Taeki Martin vs. Ramin Zamani-Zadeh     

Based on Plaintiff’s pending motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff objected, and gave non-responsive responses, to Defendant’s requests for discovery.  After the Court denied the motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff should have provided adequate supplemental discovery responses. Plaintiff failed to do so. Defendant filed a motion to compel, seeking attorneys fees and sanctions. Thereafter, Plaintiff provided supplemental, but still inadequate, discovery responses. Plaintiff’s counsel shall be required to reimburse Defendant for his expenses incurred and filing the motion to compel and to correct the deficiencies of the current discovery responses. Defendant’s request for sanction is denied.

Judge David T. Thuma
Attorneys Fees, Chapter 13, Conversion     11/12/2021     Chuck and Chuthamard McCune     

Debtors’ chapter 13 case converted to chapter 7 after the court approved debtors’ counsel’s fees but before confirmation of a chapter 13 plan. The order approving fees did not specify what should happen to the funds debtors paid to the chapter 13 trustee in the event of case conversion. Debtors’ counsel subsequently withdrew from representing the debtors. The court determined that, consistent with Harris v. Viegelahn, 575 U.S. 513 and this court’s prior decision in In re Beauregard, 533 B.R. 826 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2015), the chapter 13 trustee must return the funds on hand to debtors unless counsel’s engagement letter signed by the debtors includes an assignment of debtors’ right to payment. Alternatively, debtors’ former counsel could submit a post-conversion/post-withdrawal as counsel assignment with certification that the assignment is truly voluntary signed by the debtors.   

 

Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz
Chapter 11, Claim Objection     11/04/2021     Twin Pines, LLC     

Bank asserted a secured claim against equipment Debtor acquired post-petition under the theory that 1) the equipment was proceeds of encumbered LLC membership interests initially pledged by Debtor’s individual members to secure payment to acquire their membership interests in the Debtor; 2) the pledged membership interests would be transferred to a new investor upon confirmation of debtor’s plan in exchange for the investor’s prior contribution to the purchase of the equipment; and 3) the after-acquired equipment became property of the debtor’s bankruptcy estate. Creditor who held the initial security interest in the pledged membership interests had assigned  his security interest to the Bank. The Court sustained Debtor’s objection to the Bank’s claim, in part, because the evidence before the Court did  not establish that pledged membership interests would be transferred to the new investor. Consequently, the Bank did not establish under the Uniform Commercial Code that the after-acquired equipment was proceeds of the security interest in the pledged membership interests. The Court sustained Debtor’s objection to Creditor’s claim because his secured claim was premised on the same theory as the Bank’s and because his unsecured claim was not a claim against the Debtor, but rather, a claim against the non-debtor individual members of the Debtor. 

Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz
Discharge Injunction, Settlement     11/03/2021     Brian Van Winkle et. al. v Belleview Valley Land Co. et.al     

Plaintiffs, co-representatives of Debtor’s probate estate, filed this adversary proceeding seeking to recover redemption funds obtained by Defendants from a state court registry, which had been deposited by the probate estate to redeem property the Defendants had foreclosed. Plaintiffs’ theory  was that Defendants violated the discharge injunction by taking the funds. Determining the rightful owner of the redemption funds raised an obscure legal issue on which there is no binding or persuasive precedent. An appeal and protracted litigation of this already years-long dispute was a certainty. With the Court’s encouragement, the parties pursued mediation. They reached a settlement agreement and filed a joint motion seeking its approval. One of the co-representatives then unilaterally objected to, and sought to rescind, the settlement agreement. Applying New Mexico contract and probate law, the Court denied the objection. Applying bankruptcy law, the Court approved the settlement agreement.

Judge David T. Thuma

Pages