Judge Pamela S. Hollis - Opinions / Outlines
Please note that the decisions listed below are not a complete inventory of all the judge's decisions, that the electronic versions are not documents of record, and that the official records are available at the clerk's office.
|
In Re: Fred S. Weiner Dent-A-Med, Inc. v. Fred S. Weiner Plaintiff provided credit to patients of Debtor’s dental practice. Plaintiff failed to prove Debtor made fraudulent misrepresentations or perpetrated actual fraud by submitting “pre-billed” charge-slips for payment from Plaintiff and by “pre-billing” dental patients for work not yet performed because Plaintiff did not prohibit pre-billing and Plaintiff knew that charges were being pre-billed. Because Plaintiff failed to establish fraud, court did not reach alter-ego theory as to whether debtor was personally liable for debts of his corporate entities. Issued :July 03, 2008 |
05 B 54630 06 A 00688 |
|
In re: Jeffrey Oscarson Green Bay Packaging, Inc. v. Jeffrey Oscarson In its original opinion, the court found that the plaintiff/creditor did not meet its burden of proof under 727(a)(4)(A), and debtor/defendant prevailed. Judgment also entered for the defendant on 523(a)(2)(B) count. On appeal, the district court affirmed the 523 finding, but determined that the creditor established a presumption of an intent to deceive under 727. Therefore, the bankruptcy court should have shifted the burden of proof to the defendant to prove that he lacked fraudulent intent. The proceeding was remanded. On remand, the bankruptcy court applied the district court's standard and found for the plaintiff. Issued :July 02, 2008 |
05 B 52582 06 A 00511 |
|
In re: Gary Cole
Creditor sued Chapter 7 debtor seeking denial of discharge under 11 USC 727 and exception from discharge of debt under 11 USC 523. Debtor did not list interest as president and owner of catering company on Schedule B to his bankruptcy petition. Debtor also failed to maintain and produce documentation of transactions relating to his interest in catering company. Held: Discharge denied under 11 USC 727(a)(4) and 11 USC 727(a)(3). Issued :November 15, 2007 |
06 B 08794 06 A 01653 |
|
In Re: Diana and Dale Kasco
Prepetition, movant purchased the unpaid real estate taxes due for Debtors' residence. Debtors filed for relief under Chapter 13 just prior to expiration of the redemption period. Debtors scheduled the tax debt for payment to the county, and confirmed a plan that provided for payment of the tax debt during the term of the plan. Movant sought relief from the stay to proceed in state court after expiration of the redemption period. HELD: Movant is a creditor and the tax debt is a secured claim that can be paid over time through a Chapter 13 plan. No cause to grant relief from stay and motion denied. Issued :November 08, 2007 |
06 B 16620 |
|
In Re: Stephen A. Weiss
In this individual chapter 11, creditors moved for relief from stay based on purported underlying security interests in debtor's interests in various partnerships and LLCs. Creditors' interest arose out of an assignment of interests executed by debtor as security for two loans. Court found that under underlying operating agreements and Illinois law, debtor did not have authority to assign his interests without prior consent of other parties to the various agreements. Therefore, assignment was invalid. Accordingly, creditors did not have security interest and motion was denied. Issued :October 23, 2007 |
07 B 06781 |
|
Chatz v. BearingPoint
Chapter 7 trustee sued KPMG, whom debtor had retained to perform a valuation analysis for its employee stock purchase plan. The trustee sought over $20 million in damages, alleging that KPMG breached its contract with the debtor, committed professional malpractice, and aided and abetted debtor's directors and officers in the breach of their fiduciary duties. Held: Judgment for the defendants. After considering the numerous decisions made by KPMG in the exercise of its professional judgment, as well as the circumstances in which the valuation analysis was issued, court determined that KPMG was not negligent. Issued :May 17, 2007 |
03 A 02300 |
|
In Re: Darlene Williams
Chapter 13 debtor sought to retain her car over secured creditor's objection. Since debtor was not entitled to a discharge pursuant to 11 USC 1328(f), plan had to provide that the creditor retain its lien until payment of "the underlying debt determined under nonbankruptcy law." 11 USC 1325(a)(5)(B)(i)(I)(aa). Secured creditor objected on the grounds that the plan failed to do so. The issue was whether that phrase meant that the debtor had to pay the contract rate of interest or whether a prime-plus-risk-factor rate of interest as described in Till v. SCS Credit Corp., 541 U.S. 465, 474 (2004), would be sufficient. Held: Till and its prime-plus-risk-factor analysis does not apply to the interpretation of 1325(a)(5)(B)(i)(I)(aa). Plan must provide that Debtor pay the contract rate of interest. Issued :April 23, 2007 |
06 B 15945 |
|
In re: Jeffrey F. Oscarson In re: Oscar F. Oscarson Green Bay Packaging, Inc. v. , Jeffrey F. Oscarson Green Bay Packaging v. Oscar F. Oscarson Creditor who supplied business sued father and son debtors on the guarantee they had executed for the business, asserting that the debt was nondischargeable because of misstatements in the financial statements that supported the guarantee. The supplier also sought denial of the son's discharge based on omissions from his schedules. Held: Judgment for the defendants on all counts. Creditor failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it relied on the financial statements submitted with the guarantee, and there was no showing of an intent to deceive by the son. Issued :March 06, 2007 |
05 B 52582 05 B 52473 06 A 00511 06 A 00525 |
|
Nanovation Technologies, Inc. and Nanovation Technologies Of Michigan, Inc.,
Reconsideration sought of opinion granting summary judgment to insurers in declaratory judgment action. Movants argued that the court erred in finding that Florida Statute Section 627.426, which requires insurers to advise insureds within 30 days that a coverage defense would be raised, did not apply. Held: Motion denied. An insurer's determination that a notice of circumstances is insufficient to trigger coverage under a claims-made policy is not a coverage defense and so compliance with section 627.426 was not required. Issued :October 19, 2006 |
01 B 26090 (Jointly Administered) 02 A 01680 |
|
Nanovation Technologies, Inc. and Nanovation Technologies Of Michigan, Inc., Barry Chatz v National Union Fire Insurance Co., et al. Chapter 7 Trustee sued former directors and officers of debtor, then brought declaratory judgment action against D&O liability insurance carriers. Insurers had denied coverage for lack of notice. Parties filed six cross-motions for summary judgment on declaratory judgment action. Held: Purported "notice of circumstances" letter sent by debtor to insurers during policy period was deficient and did not constitute notice. Insurers had not waived their right to make that argument, neither were they estopped from making it. Insurers did not act in bad faith in denying coverage. The difference between claims made and occurrence liability policies is discussed. Issued :July 27, 2006 |
01 B 26090 (Jointly Administered) 02 A 01680 |
|
In Re: Georgia Davis Henry
Chapter 13 Trustee moved to dismiss case where debtor would have to continue to make payments beyond 5 years in order to complete her plan. Held: Although the court cannot confirm or modify a plan which would extend beyond 5 years, the fact that payments will be made for more than 5 years does not per se require dismissal under 1307(c). With that in mind, the court considered the particular factual circumstances and determined that cause for dismissal did not exist under 1307(c). Motion to dismiss denied. Issued :June 12, 2006 |
01 B 19852 |
|
In Re: Capital Acquisitions & Management Corporation
Receiver appointed in District Court litigation sought authority to sell Chapter 11 Debtor's interest in a limited liability company to one of the LLC members. Third party objected and submitted an offer. Receiver changed tactics and filed a motion seeking approval of bid procedures. The LLC objected and engaged in extensive briefing with the third party over whether the LLC's Operating Agreement was an executory contract. Parties also disputed whether the right of first refusal held by the other members of the LLC was enforceable in bankruptcy. HELD: The Operating Agreement of this particular LLC is not an executory contract. The right of first refusal is neither an ipso facto clause nor a restraint on assignment, and is enforceable. The Receiver's motion for approval of bid procedures is granted. Issued :April 27, 2006 |
05 B 12554 |
|
In re: Christopher Lynn Dameron Shawn DeAmicis vs. Christopher Lynn Dameron Debt owed by debtor contractor who took funds from customer but did not perform work and who forged insurance certificate found nondischargeable under 11 USC 523(a)(2)(A). Debtor's discharge denied under 11 USC 727(a)(4)(A) based on false testimony at meeting of creditors and during trial as well as false statements in schedules and statement of financial affairs. Discharge also denied under 11 USC 727(a)(3) and (a)(5). Issued :November 29, 2005 |
03 B 16263 03 A 02122 |
|
In Re: Braude Jewelry Corp.
Braude Jewelry filed chapter 11 and successfully confirmed its plan, including assumption of two leases. Within a year, Reorganized Braude filed a new liquidating chapter 11. After accomplishing certain actions -- including rejecting those assumed leases -- Braude II was dismissed. Meanwhile, the UST moved to convert Braude I to Chapter 7 and a trustee was appointed. The landlords whose leases were assumed in Braude I and rejected in Braude II filed claims in Braude I, seeking administrative priority for the claims arising from the breach of their leases. The IRS also filed a claim in Braude I, seeking allowance of a claim based on penalties for unpaid withholding and FICA taxes incurred during Braude II's post-petition business operations. The Braude I trustee filed an omnibus objection to claims. Held: Objections overruled and (1) landlords' claims allowed with administrative priority and (2) IRS claim allowed as a priority unsecured claim. Issued :September 30, 2005 |
00 B 04596 |
|
In Re: James Brown
Chapter 13 debtor not required to turn over proceeds of refinance to Trustee. Issued :July 08, 2005 |
03 B 23239 |
|
In re: James P. Whitmer Munson v. Whitmer Plaintiff sought finding that state court sanctions judgment against defendant was nondischargeable pursuant to 523(a)(6). At summary judgment, court had ruled that only issue for trial was whether defendant had the subjective knowledge that plaintiffs were substantially certain to be injured by his frivolous pleadings. Following trial, court held that defendant did have such subjective knowledge and therefore his debt was declared nondischargeable. Issued :April 27, 2005 |
03 B 42061 03 A 04790 |
|
In Re: Victor and Linda Wilson
Our Chapter 13 Model Plan does not modify a mortgagee's rights in violation of the Code. Instead, it simply provides a mechanism for adjudicating disputes involving those rights, such as might arise over postpetition defaults, fees, and costs of collection. Issued :February 25, 2005 |
04 B 26948 |
|
In Re: Elizabeth T. Dilling
Judgment debtor did not have sufficient assets to obtain an appeal bond, and after several efforts to post alternative security, filed an individual chapter 11 case. Judgment creditor moved to dismiss the bankruptcy as a bad faith filing or in the alternative to appoint trustee or convert case. Motion denied following an evidentiary hearing. Issued :February 24, 2005 |
04 B 03574 |
|
In Re Renee Jackson
Confirmation of a chapter 13 plan, alone, does not value individual assets scheduled by debtor. Bankruptcy Court must hold a hearing to expressly value an asset for purposes of 348(f) of the bankruptcy code. Issued :October 21, 2004 |
00 B 24953 |
|
In Re: Bettie J. Durrani Bettie J. Durrani vs. Educational Credit Management Corp.,assignee for Citibank, USA Upon reconsideration, Debtor satisfied all three elements of the Brunner test and her student loan was discharged pursuant to 11 U.S.C. section 523(a)(8). Availability of income-contingent repayment plan did not preclude finding of undue hardship. Issued :June 30, 2004 |
97 B 16918 02 A 01859 |
|
In Re: David Vlcek
Pursuant to 11 USC 110(i)(1), if a bankruptcy petition preparer has violated any part of section 110, the bankruptcy court shall certify that violation to the district court. Issued :February 10, 2004 |
03 B 28311 |
|
In re: Artra Group, Inc.
An expert witness is not a "professional person" whose retention must be approved under 11 USC 327. Issued :December 02, 2003 |
02 B 21522 |
|
In re: Artra Group, Inc. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Artra Group, Inc. vs. Artra Group, Inc. and Entrade, Inc. The permanent injunction rejected by this court in September was amended to bar only those claims based on or derivative of injuries to the debtor or the estate, and the settlement agreement was approved. Issued :November 18, 2003 |
02 B 21522 02 A 01086 |
|
In re: Willie L. Davis
When a chapter 7 debtor redeems following conversion from chapter 13, under 11 USC 348(f)(1)(B) the redemption amount is the amount at which the allowed secured claim was valued in the confirmed chapter 13 plan. Issued :October 27, 2003 |
03 B 01519 |
|
In re: Artra Group, Inc Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Artra Group, Inc. vs. Artra Group, Inc. and Entrade, Inc. A permanent injunction in a settlement agreement, barring any and all claims against certain non-debtors, was not approved. Issued :September 30, 2003 |
02 B 21522 02 A 01086 |
|
In re The Estes Group, Inc., Debtor. G.D. Barri & Associates, Inc. et al., Plaintiffs v. The Estes Group, Inc. et al., Defendant/Cross-Claimant/Cross-Claim Defendant, and Alford Services, Inc., Third-Party Defendant Whether a subcontractor who rendered services to the debtor was entitled to a mechanics lien because the contracts involved were "project-specific." Issued :September 17, 2003 |
01 B 15312 01 A 00800 |
|
In Re: Michael Linane and Sheila Linane
Mortgage deficiency judgment liens were avoided despite 11 USC 522(f)(2)(C), since deficiency judgments do not arise "out of a mortgage foreclosure." Issued :March 17, 2003 |
02 B 42557 |