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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorneys Fees, Chapter 13 | 02/14/2020 | Stephen Guajardo and Roberta Garcia-Guajardo |
Debtors’ objected to their former counsel’s fee application for work done over a four-month span in their bankruptcy case and an adversary proceeding. The Court awards most of the requested amount, concluding that counsel’s work on the case was necessary, beneficial, and reasonable, except for some clerical work that should not have been billed to the estate.
|
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Miscellaneous | 01/31/2020 | Alfred E.Luckett, Jr., and Christine McCarthy |
The Debtors filed a “Motion to Compel Turnover/Release of Debtors from Incarceration” in which they requested that the Court enter an order compelling the Santa Fe New Mexico Sheriff and the Santa Fe County Detention Center to release them from incarceration for civil contempt. Finding that the Debtors’ motion was, in effect, a motion to grant a writ of habeas corpus, the Court denied the motion on the ground that the habeas corpus statutes, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2254, did not vest bankruptcy courts with jurisdiction to order the Debtors’ release from state custody. |
Judge Thomas McNamara | |
| Abstention, Core Proceedings, Jurisdiction, Remand | 01/29/2020 | Philip J. Montoya, as chapter 7 Trustee of the Cashco, Inc. bankruptcy estate v. Stephen P. Curtis, and Stephen P. Curtis, Attorney at Law P.C. |
The Court granted plaintiff’s motion for mandatory abstention and remand. The removed state law action asserted state law claims and remained a non-core proceeding subject to mandatory abstention notwithstanding defendants’ defense that allegedly implicated the Court’s core jurisdiction to determine whether property is bankruptcy estate property. |
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Discharge Injunction, Exemptions, Property of the Estate, Standing, Statutory Construction | 01/28/2020 | Raymond Archuletta |
Property owners’ association challenged Debtor’s homestead exemption in his residence, arguing that Debtor had only a mere expectancy in a ¼ interest in the property that would not be realized after Debtor’s deceased mother’s estate was probated and all claims against the property were paid. Because succession of real property occurs upon decedent’s death, and following the trend in other districts, the Court recognizes Debtor’s homestead exemption as valid. However, property owners’ association may proceed against the property and the Debtor as personal representative without violating the discharge injuction. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Reconsideration | 01/24/2020 | Picacho Hills Utility Company Inc. |
Debtor moved for reconsideration of the Court’s previous opinion overruling Debtor’s claim objection, arguing that its counsel lacked authority to permit the Court to issue a ruling on the pleadings and that Debtor would have provided new documentary and testimonial evidence in support of its position at a final hearing. Because counsel’s strategic litigation choice was not a concession that resulted in manifest injustice to the Debtor and because the findings and conclusions in the new evidence were previously in this record, the Debtor’s motion is denied |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Dischargeability, Sham Affidavit | 01/24/2020 | Gorence & Oliveros, P.C., TMP Legal, LLC, Adam Griego, and Elijah Haukereid v. David Robert Chavez, Jr. |
The Court granted summary judgment as to one plaintiff on a non- dischargeability claim under 523(a)(6) for willful and malicious injury. To the extent Defendant’s affidavit contradicted admissions contained in Defendant’s prior plea agreement, the affidavit would be disregarded as a sham affidavit. Default judgment had no issue preclusive effect. Fact issues precluded summary judgment as to the other plaintiff. |
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Disclosure Statement, Jurisdiction | 01/21/2020 | Michele Geraldine Ament |
The Court determined that it has jurisdiction to divide community property notwithstanding a pending dissolution of marriage proceeding in which property division has not yet been determined. The Court therefore did not deny approval of the debtor’s disclosure statement based on alleged facial unconfirmability of plan that proposes to divide community property. The Court required debtor to amend disclosure statement provide adequate information. The Court also discussed abstention.
|
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Adequate Protection, Automatic Stay | 01/16/2020 | Michele Geraldine Ament |
The Court granted, in part, creditors motion for relief from stay as to certain real property, and denied the creditor’s motion for relief from stay as to other real property and two vehicles, which were necessary to debtor’s reorganization efforts, on the condition that the debtor make adequate protection payments to the creditor.
|
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Adversary, Trustee | 01/09/2020 | Dean L. Horton and Frances H. Horton |
Liquidating Trustee in a related bankruptcy case sought leave to bring constructive trust action against individual debtors’ bankruptcy estate’s most valuable asset—the debtors’ residence. Debtors and the chapter 7 trustee objected, arguing that the “Barton doctrine” and the automatic stay bar the claim. The Court holds that neither the Barton doctrine nor the automatic stay prevents the liquidating trustee from bringing in rem action against the chapter 7 trustee. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Automatic Stay, Redemption | 01/09/2020 | Allison Katherine Fitzsimmons |
Creditor was entitled to recover compensatory damages for willful violation of the automatic stay by another creditor. The Court rejected the argument that the stay terminated by operation of law because the debtor failed to complete her intended redemption of a vehicle within a certain time. The Court denied the creditor’s request for punitive damages. |
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz |