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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Costs, Dischargeability, Divorce/Separation, Separation Agreement | 09/11/2020 | Heather McDonald v. Stephen McDonald |
In connection with their divorce, Plaintiff Heather McDonald and Debtor/Defendant Stephen McDonald entered into a marriage settlement agreement (“MSA)” in which Debtor agreed to assume certain debts (the “Debts”). Debtor thereafter filed Bankruptcy Case No. 20-10755 and ultimately the Court granted Debtor a discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727. When Debtor did not pay the Debts, Plaintiff filed an adversary complaint seeking a determination that the Debts are non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15). The Court held that, although Debtor’s obligations to the creditors were discharged under § 727, his obligations to Plaintiff under the MSA were not, and that, pursuant to the MSA, Plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement of the amounts paid on Debtor’s behalf. The Court also granted in part Plaintiff’s request for costs and ordered Debtor to pay a portion of the filing fee for the adversary proceeding.
|
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Automatic Stay, Injunctions, Relief from Stay, Sanctions | 09/08/2020 | Motiva Performance Engineering, LLC |
Creditor sought a comfort order seeking a determination that the automatic stay did not prohibit him from pursuing contempt proceedings in state court against non-debtor codefendants for allegedly violating the state court’s prepetition preliminary injunction. The Court held that the automatic stay does not apply to the non-debtor codefendants. If automatic stay did apply, however, cause exists to allow creditor to proceed.
|
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Adversary, Avoidance Actions, Valuation | 08/27/2020 | Yvette J. Gonzales, v. Timothy Delgado et al |
Chapter 7 trustee sought to recover approximately $1.2 million transfers taken as shareholder distributions by defendants who were the owners of Debtor—a consumer lending and retail furniture business—on the theory that the business was insolvent in the two-year prepetition period during which the distributions were made. Finding no evidence that business was on its “deathbed” during the transfer period, the Court rejected the trustee’s argument that the fair value of Debtor’s assets was their liquidation value as opposed to their going concern value. Holding that the trustee failed to carry the burden of proving Debtor’s insolvency during the transfer period, the Court entered judgment in favor of the defendants
|
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Attorneys Fees, Chapter 13 | 08/20/2020 | Stephen Guajardo and Roberta Garcia- Guajardo |
Debtors’ objected to their former counsel’s fee application for work done in their bankruptcy case and an adversary proceeding. The Court awarded all of the requested amount, concluding that counsel’s work on the case was necessary, beneficial, and reasonable.
|
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Cause, Due Process, Extension of Time, Good Faith, Proof of Claim | 07/31/2020 | Raymond Calvin Wooten and Kathy Riddle Wooten |
Creditor moved for allowance to file a late proof of claim after the claims bar date had run. Considering that issues beyond the creditor’s control prevented it from receiving notice of the Debtors’ bankruptcy until after the claims bar date, and that the creditor took quick, appropriate action upon learning of the bankruptcy, the creditor successfully rebutted the mailbox presumption and showed that the motion should be granted for cause and because creditor’s neglect was excusable.
|
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Exemptions, Garnishment, Preference, Property of the Estate | 07/24/2020 | Kelli Denise Allen and Paul Eugene Allen |
Debtors sought to exempt (1) garnished wages under a state garnishment exemption statute and (2) an enclosed trailer under a “tool of the trade” exemption and the case trustee objected to both. The Court sustained the trustee’s objections because (1) wages cannot be exempt under the statute once paid by the employer, the exemption could not be used to shelter the debtors’ preference claim, and debtors were attempting to apply the exemption to the non-exempt portion of husband’s wages, and (2) because the trailer was used by the debtors, not in their trade, but in their hobby business that did not contribute substantially to their income.
|
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Adversary, Contract Interpretation, Damages | 07/17/2020 | Edward Mazel et al v. Las Cruces Abstract and Title Company et al |
The Court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant, a title insurance company, on plaintiff’s breach of contract claim. The claim was based on a policy of title insurance that excluded from coverage any loss caused by an encumbrance created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant. The undisputed material facts show that the plaintiff, by knowledge imputed through its agent, suffered or assumed the encumbrance that allegedly caused the loss claimed by plaintiff. Plaintiff also failed to produce evidence of actual damages—an essential element of a breach of contract claim.
|
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Discovery, Garnishment, Standing, Summary Judgment, Valuation | 07/10/2020 | Paul E. Allen et all v. Capital One Bank |
Plaintiffs brought suit against Defendant creditor to recover garnished wages and for damages resulting from violation of the automatic stay. The Court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding the recovery action moot because the wages were returned before Plaintiffs amended their complaint, and holding that Defendant’s actions in returning the wages did not violate the automatic stay.
|
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Adversary, Dismissal, Equitable Remedies, Property of the Estate | 06/26/2020 | Robert Marcus v. Dean L. Horton et al |
Debtors/Defendants moved for dismissal by judgment on the pleadings of a Plaintiff’s claim for recognition of a constructive trust. Plaintiff is the liquidating trustee of a dairy, formerly owned and controlled by Debtors. Plaintiff claims that Debtors looted the dairy of its cash to build and furnish Debtors’ expensive house, thereby causing the dairy to fail. The Court holds that Plaintiff’s allegations, the truth of which are assumed, are sufficient to state a claim for constructive trust. The Court also addresses the opposing views expressed by courts and legal scholars on the viability of constructive trust claims in bankruptcy—an issue that is not dispositive at this stage of the pleadings, but which may arise in future litigation of Plaintiff’s claim.
|
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Appeals, Chapter 11, Confirmation, Conversion | 06/18/2020 | Victor P. Kearney |
With a confirmed creditor plan of reorganization pending on appeal, Debtor moved to convert his chapter 11 case to chapter 7, asserting an absolute right of conversion. The unsecured creditors’ committee and other interested parties opposed conversion, arguing that the motion was made in bad faith and should be denied; and alternatively arguing that if the motion is granted the case should be immediately reconverted to chapter 11. The Court concludes that two exceptions exist to the purported “absolute right” of conversion—a bad faith exception and a confirmed creditor plan exception. Because the facts of this case demonstrate that both exceptions apply, Debtor’s motion is denied. The Court holds, further, that even assuming that Debtor’s right to convert is truly absolute, immediate reconversion would be appropriate to avoid irreparable harm to the creditors and the estate.
|
Judge David T. Thuma |