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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Automatic Stay, Chapter 13, Classification of Claims, Confirmation, Nondischargeability | 05/24/2024 | John W. Davis |
Chapter 13 debtor separately classified student loan debt and proposed to cure the default under an alleged payment plan, including interest. The chapter 13 trustee objected. The Court ruled that the plan unfairly discriminated against the general unsecured claims (sec. 1322(b)(1) and violated sec. 1322(b)(10), which forbids paying interest on any unsecured claim unless all claims are paid in full.
|
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Administrative Claims, Attorneys Fees, Chapter 13, Professionals, Professionals - Rule 2014(a) Disclosure | 02/26/2024 | Jon Floyd Crunk and Paula Jane Crunk |
Counsel for chapter 13 debtors filed a fee application after confirmation of the chapter 13 plan. The court allowed a portion of the fees and disallowed the remainder. One of the reasons for the partial disallowance was the inadequacy of counsel’s Rule 2014(a) disclosure. In addition, deductions were made to the charged hourly rate and the number of hours spent on the case.
|
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Attorneys Fees, Chapter 13, Employment of Professionals, Professionals - Rule 2014(a) Disclosure | 01/19/2024 | William Maldonado and Jennifer Rodriguez |
Chapter 13 debtor’s counsel filed a second fee application. The first fee application had been granted. The court reviewed the amounts billed for the first and second applications and compared the amounts to the results obtained in the case. The court disallowed most of the fees sought in the second application because the combined fees were too high for the relatively simple case.
|
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 | |
| 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 | |
| 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, Fees, Professionals | 08/25/2023 | Robert James Abernathy and Tina Louise Abernathy |
Counsel for chapter 13 debtors filed a second fee application, about two years after confirmation of debtors plan. Due to the size of the fee application, the court carefully reviewed it and allowed fees of $5,355 rather than the amount requested, i.e., $8,840.
|
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Chapter 13, Contract Interpretation, Employment of Professionals, Professionals - Conflict of Interest | 05/26/2023 | Motiva Performance Engineering, LLC |
Defendant in a pending adversary proceeding moved the court to rule that the plaintiff chapter 7 estate had a conflict of interest with the estate’s largest creditor, such that the trustee was required to retain new, separate counsel (the same counsel represents both). The court determined that the outcome of the conflict issue depended on the proper interpretation of a contract between the estate and the creditor. The court interpreted the contract and ruled that no disqualifying conflict of interest existed. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Chapter 13, Confirmation, Reconsideration | 03/10/2023 | Jody Lee Beach and Rhonda B. Beach |
Creditor moved for reconsideration of the court’s order confirming a chapter 13 plan. The creditor made eight arguments in support of the reconsideration motion. The court considered and rejected each argument.
|
Judge David T. Thuma |