Debtor/Defendant sought summary judgment on Trustee/Plaintiff’s complaint seeking the return of certain transfers of estate property.  Debtor/Defendant argued that the Public Regulation Commission’s findings and conclusions were not binding on the bankruptcy court.  Debtor/Defendant also argued it was not required to comply with section 549 (which pertains to unauthorized, post-petition transfers of estate property) while the case was suspended under section 305.  The Court determined it had insufficient evidence to rule on preclusion principles and that section 549 did not apply while the case was suspended.

Plaintiff asserted Defendants violated the discharge injunction and a court order when they took action, post-discharge, to foreclose judgment liens.  The Court declined to certify that issue to the New Mexico Supreme Court, as it required an analysis of the interplay between state and federal bankruptcy law.  The Court concluded that while a judgment lien ordinarily attaches to redeemed property under state law, Section 524 alters the analysis by cutting off lien attachment to property acquired after discharge.  The Court therefore entered summary judgment on liability, finding that Defendants violated the discharge injunction by attempting to collect a deficiency judgment from Plaintiff's redeemed property, to which the judgment lien had not attached.  The Court also declined to assess Rule 11 sanctions, set aside a stipulated order, and compel discovery.
 

Plaintiff claimed that Defendant willfully and maliciously hit his car, resulting in a nondischargeable debt under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).  Defendant asserted the collision was an accident, and that he hit Plaintiff's car in an attempt to escape after Plaintiff chased him around Albuquerque's west side.  After weighing the credibility of each witness and examining photographs taken after the collision, the Court concluded that Defendant did not willfully or maliciously damage Plaintiff's car.

The Court denied the debtor’s request to strike creditor’s motion for relief from stay, rejecting debtor’s argument that the creditor’s post petition recordation of an assignment of mortgage was void ab initio and violated the automatic stay.  The post-peptition transfer of an existing pre-petition mortgage and note, including the recording of an assignment of mortgage in the real property records, does not violate the automatic stay because it does not transfer the debtor’s property or property of the estate.  Such transfer does not constitute an act to perfect, create, or enforce a lien against the debtor’s property or property of the bankruptcy estate.