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
Damages, Dischargeability, Issue Preclusion     03/08/2021     Ivan P. Sergejev v. Jim M. Alderman et al     

The Court gave preclusive effect to a state court judgment entered after an evidentiary trial at which defendants failed to appear. Defendants participated in the litigation for 15 months, asserted a counterclaim, but then failed to appear at trial, with no advance notice or explanation for their failure to appear. Plaintiff presented testimony and other evidence at trial sufficient to satisfy his burden of proof, and the state court made a decision on the merits after making detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Plaintiff supported his motion for summary judgment with certified copies of the state court judgment and transcript from the state court trial. The state court judgment established all elements for willful and malicious injury under § 523(a)(6). Defendants willfully and maliciously damaged Plaintiff’s rental property without justification or excuse. The Court applied Cohen v. de la Cruz, 523 U.S. 213 (1998) to conclude that all damages enumerated in the state court judgment were non-dischargeable because they were directly traceable to the non-dischargeable conduct.

 

Discharge Injunction, Redemption, Res Judicata, Rooker-Feldman, Summary Judgment     03/05/2021     Brian Van Winkle et al v. Belleview Valley Land Co. et al     

Defendants moved for summary judgment on Plaintiffs complaint that Defendants violated Debtor’s discharge injunction for recovering funds associated with Debtor’s probate estate’s attempted redemption of property purchased by Defendants from a special master’s sale. Defendants believed their actions were shielded by a previous BAP regarding the same parties. Because the question of retention or remittance of funds applied to a failed redemption attempt is different than the issue of repeated foreclosures addressed by the BAP, summary judgment for Defendants was not warranted but may be appropriately granted for Plaintiffs as to liability.

 

Judge David T. Thuma
Exemptions     02/18/2021     Tammy Leigh Morris     

The Court allowed Debtor’s claim of exemption in a residence in two modular buildings under § 522(d)(1) that creditor seized pre-petition by levying on a judgment. Creditor argued the exemption applies only to property where a debtor lives on the petition date and debtor did not live in the buildings on the petition date. Creditor also argued that as a matter of law Debtor could not use the modular buildings as a residence within the meaning of the exemption statute because such use would violate the New Mexico Administrative Code. Debtor agreed the buildings were sold for storage purposes only and not to be used for a residence, and the buildings lacked some ordinary necessities of a home. The Court applied a three-part test applicable  to situations in which a debtor’s physical absence from property on the petition date is involuntary and overruled Creditor’s objection.

 

Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz
Adversary Proceedings - Procedural Matters, Fraudulent Transfers     02/12/2021     Phillip J. Montoya v. Audrey Goldstein     

11 U.S.C. Section 550(a)(1) allows a case trustee to recover property that is subject to an avoidable transfer claim from an “initial transferee.”  In the Tenth Circuit an initial transferee is someone who has a beneficial interest in, or possesses dominion or control over, the property.  A person who acts as a “mere conduit” for a transfer is not an initial transferee. In this case, Defendant (the daughter of Debtor’s then owner and president) worked for Debtor as a “runner” when she was 17 years old. Debtor wrote 3 checks payable to Defendant, who was instructed to deposit them into her father’s personal or business accounts. Defendant endorsed the checks and deposited them as instructed. Defendant was a mere conduit of the funds between Debtor and her father; she was not an initial transferee. This otherwise uncomplicated disposition was affected by two procedural matters that worked against Defendant: (1) the fact that Defendant failed to plead the conduit theory as an affirmative defense, and (2) the fact that Defendant admitted and stipulated that the funds were “transferred” to her. To avoid an unjust and legally erroneous outcome, the Court granted Defendant’s day-of-trial motion to amend her pleadings to include the conduit defense and set aside the stipulation which, arguably, could be construed as a concession of liability under Section 550(a)(1).       

Judge David T. Thuma
Attorneys Fees, Claim Objection     02/09/2021     Marilyn B. Cavanaugh     

The Court sustained, in part, Debtor’s objection to mortgage-creditor’s claim for pre-petition attorneys’ fees and costs, finding that mortgage-creditor failed to satisfy its ultimate burden of proof. The redactions in the invoices and lack of other evidence resulted in disallowance of about 60% of the amount claimed.  Mortgage-creditor’s heavily redacted attorney fee invoices prevented the Court from evaluating the reasonableness of fees and costs under applicable nonbankruptcy law by reviewing the invoices. Mortgage-creditor did not offer any evidence of customary flat fee foreclosure arrangements nor explain what work was performed to earn the requested fees. 

Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz
Appeals, Avoidance Actions, Costs of Litigation, Standing     02/04/2021     Roman Catholic Church of the Archdiocese of Santa Fe     

 

Debtor and its parishes moved for a stay pending the appeal to the 10th Circuit BAP of the Court’s previous ruling granting derivative standing to the UCC to pursue avoidance actions against the parishes. Because movants were unable to show a likelihood of success on interlocutory appeal, because the cost of litigation did not constitute irreparable harm to the movants, and because a stay would likely harm non-moving litigants, the motion is denied.

 

Judge David T. Thuma
Automatic Stay, Claim Preclusion, Issue Preclusion, Relief from Stay, Rooker-Feldman     02/04/2021     Michael Jacques Jacobs     

Issue preclusion, but not claim preclusion or Rooker-Feldman, prevented Debtor from relitigating whether mortgage creditor had standing to seek relief from the automatic stay. Creditor obtained a final judgment against debtor following a trial on the merits in state court determining that it was the holder of the note and mortgage and ordering foreclosure. Notwithstanding debtor’s appeal of the state court judgment, the judgment remained a final order entitled to preclusive effect.

 

Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz
Valuation     01/29/2021     Twin Pines, LLC     

The Court concluded that the Debtor’s assets should be valued as of the confirmation date and considered the expert testimony of two appraisers who relied on the cost, sales comparison, and income approaches to value the Debtor’s real property, improvements, and equipment. Both appraisers assumed in their reports that the Debtor, which operates a car wash in Ruidoso, NM, was operating two fully functional automatic drive-through car wash bays where, in fact, only one bay was operational as a drive-through car wash bay during some of the years for which data was provided to the appraisers. Hence, the Court adjusted the cost and income approach values to reflect the status of the car wash bays. The Court also concluded that, to the extent new equipment installed in the car wash was a fixture, § 552(b)(1) cut off the creditor’s interest in the equipment. The lengthy opinion examines in detail both appraisers’ cost, sales comparison, and income approach analyses in their expert reports.

 

Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz
Adversary     01/29/2021     Edward Mazel et al v. Las Cruces Abstract and Title Company et al     

Sixteen months after filing their original complaint, six months after the close of discovery, and with eleven fully-briefed motions for partial summary judgment pending before the Court, Plaintiffs in this heavily litigated adversary proceeding filed a motion to amend their complaint seeking to add a negligence claim  (having originally pleaded professional negligence), drop a civil conspiracy claim, add three plaintiffs, and amend the factual allegations. Defendants objected. The Court, having addressed Plaintiffs’ negligence claim in its opinion granting summary judgment to defendants on professional negligence, and noting that Plaintiffs offered no explanation for the delay in seeking to add a new claim, held that the request was untimely and futile. Plaintiffs request to add new plaintiffs was untimely made, and would otherwise be futile—the additional plaintiffs lacked standing, they did not suffer damages attributable to Defendants’ conduct, and they were strangers to the underlying transaction. Amending the factual allegations would also be futile considering the advanced stage of proceedings.  On these grounds, and to avoid undue prejudice to the Defendants, the motion is denied except to  the extent that Plaintiffs seek to drop the civil conspiracy claim.

 

Judge David T. Thuma
Adversary, Discharge, Fraudulent Transfers, Settlement, Summary Judgment     01/22/2021     United States Trustee v. Pawankumar Jain     

Debtor, formerly a successful neurologist, filed chapter 7 bankruptcy after losing his medical license, being sued for wrongful death arising from prescription drug overdose deaths of two of his patients, and divorcing from his wife. Two wrongful death plaintiffs filed claims in the bankruptcy case. The UST filed this adversary proceeding objecting to Debtor’s discharge under various provisions of Section 727(a).  The chapter 7 trustee subsequently filed an adversary proceeding seeking to avoid alleged fraudulent transfers from Debtor to his wife and son. The chapter 7 trustee, the fraudulent transfer defendants, and the two claimants reached a settlement agreement resolving the chapter 7 trustee’s adversary proceeding, and leaving the estate with no unpaid creditors. Based on the settlement agreement, Debtor filed a motion for summary judgment asking the Court to grant his discharge as a matter of “discretion” and, in the alternative, seeking dismissal of the UST’s complaint as moot.  The Court held the UST’s complaint is not moot because discharge is a significant privilege reserved for honest debtors, and the UST is charged with protecting the integrity of the bankruptcy code. The Court also held that it does not have discretion to grant debtor a discharge if the UST can prove that Debtor’s conduct satisfies one of the enumerated exceptions to discharge stated in Section 707(a). Debtor’s motion for summary judgment is denied.

 

Judge David T. Thuma

Pages