Wages earned and garnished within 90 days prior to the bankruptcy filing were subject to avoidance under 11 U.S.C. 547(e)(3).

The Court denied the debtor’s discharge under § 727(a)(4) based on the debtor’s false oaths given in connection with the bankruptcy case.  Debtor gave knowing and intentional false testimony at a Rule 2004 examination and at subsequent depositions regarding his participation in pre-petition transactions involving the sale of his business. 

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.