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, 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 | |
| Chapter 11, Fees, Trustee | 12/24/2019 | MBF Inspection Services, Inc., |
The Court granted motion for entry of a final decree over the objection of the U.S. Trustee’s Office that a final decree was inappropriate because the estate had not been fully administered. The Court reached this conclusion after considering the several factors listed in the 1991 Advisory Committee notes to BR 3022 and the significant burden on the Debtor of the U.S. Trustee’s fees which were charged at the much higher “alternative” rate set forth in 28 U.S.C. Section 1930(a)(6)(B).
|
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Administrative Claims, Chapter 11, Chapter 12, Dismissal or Conversion, Settlement | 12/19/2019 | Jackie Don Roberts and Vickie Mae Roberts |
Debtors, who are farmers, filed for bankruptcy under chapter 11 because their aggregate debt exceeded the then-applicable debt limit in Section 108(18) and rendered them ineligible to file a chapter 12 case. When the Family Farmer Relief Act raised the debt limit to $10 million, debtors became eligible for chapter 12. After a period of contentious litigation, Debtors and their creditors negotiated a settlement, which included an agreement that Debtors would convert their case from chapter 11 to chapter 12. Debtors’ former attorney, an administrative claimant, filed the only objection to conversion. The Court overruled the objection on the ground that the bases therefor were unfounded. The Court granted Debtors’ motion to convert based on its finding that conversion was fair and equitable to all parties.
|
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Dischargeability | 12/17/2019 | Marie J. Holguin v. National Collegiate Student Loan Truste 2006-2, a Delaware Statutory Trust, |
Although the Court determined that a non-profit institution’s guaranty of a student loan program satisfies the “funded” requirement for non-dischargeability of student loan debt under § 523(a)(8)(A)(i), the Court denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding that defendant did not establish the chain of title for the student loan at issue and did not establish that the non-profit’s guaranty was in effect at the time the loan was granted. |
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Default Judgment, Nondischargeability, Summary Judgment | 12/13/2019 | Gretchen Welch v. David Tracy Giron |
Plaintiff moved for summary judgment, asking that her California state default judgment against debtor-defendant (domesticated in New Mexico) be found to be nondischargeable. The Court denies plaintiff’s motion because while the state court judgment definitively established the amount of the debt, the Court will not grant issue preclusive effect to the state court judgment, and a judgment for plaintiff would be inequitable under these facts.
|
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Abandonment, Assumption and Rejection, Due Process, Jurisdiction, Valuation | 12/04/2019 | Leobardo Munoz and Maria Elena Munoz |
Debtors filed motion to assume a real estate contract for the purchase of an unimproved lot. In a 2008 chapter 7 case, Debtors failed to disclose their interest in the real estate contract which, therefore, remained property of the chapter 7 estate. If Debtors wish to assume the real estate contract, they must re-open the 2008 chapter 7 case, amend their schedules, and seek abandonment of the real estate contract. In the present case, moreover, Debtors failed to comply with service-of-process rules and thereby deprived the owner of the unimproved lot notice of the bankruptcy and of the motion to assume. Without proper service of process, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the property owner. The motion to assume is denied.
|
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Chapter 13, Proof of Claim | 11/27/2019 | Jimmy Thad Stuteville |
The court determined on the parties’ joint motion for summary judgment based on stipulated facts that debtor’s former spouse’s claim arising from a state court judgment awarding her a judgment in the event she paid debtor’s share of guardian ad litem fees debtor was ordered to pay in connection with the parties’ dissolution of marriage proceeding constituted a domestic support obligation (“DSO”) under § 101(14A), entitled to priority under § 507(a)(1)(B). However, portion former spouse paid to GAL based on court-imposed sanction against debtor was not in the nature of support; consequently it was not entitled to priority status as a DSO.
|
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Chapter 13, Dischargeability, Proof of Claim | 11/14/2019 | Kenric L. Redfearn |
Debtor objected to his ex-wife’s proof of claim arising from an “equalization payment” provision of the marital settlement agreement. Debtor argued that the equalization payment was a property settlement dischargeable in Chapter 13. Debtor’s ex-wife argued that the equalization payment was a non-dischargeable domestic support obligation. Evidence presented at a final hearing on the matter indicated that the equalization payment was intended as support for Debtor’s ex-wife, who could not otherwise afford basic necessities, and who took a significantly smaller distribution of community property in exchange for the equalization payment. Debtor’s objection was overruled. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Filing Injunction | 11/14/2019 | The Vaughan Company, Realtors |
The court struck an objection filed by pro-se litigants in violation of a filing injunction order.
|
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Judicial Estoppel, Property of the Estate, Public Utility, Res Judicata, Sales of Assets | 10/25/2019 | Clark C. Coll v. Picacho Hills Development Co., Inc. |
Trial held to determine whether a contracted-for conveyance of real property title for cash was in improper post-petition transfer based on bankruptcy and state law; whether the contract transferred water rights as additional consideration for the title; whether state court proceedings curtailed this Court’s jurisdiction; and whether this Court should revisit an earlier judgment that was affirmed on appeal. The Court concludes that the state court actions do not limit this Court’s ability to rule; that the exchange of cash for title was improper but that no water rights changed hands; and that the Court will not alter the earlier judgment.
|
Judge David T. Thuma |