| Filed Date | | AdvNo | Debtor | Issue |
| 4/11/2024 | 23-24343 | | Kim Jones | This case came before the Court on April 2, 2024, at 1:00 p.m., on Kim Jones’ (“Ms. Jones’” or “Debtor’s”) Expedited Motion to Reconsider, Vacate or Order Granting In Rem Relief from the Automatic Stay and Relief from the Co-Debtor Stay (“Motion to Reconsider”). (ECF No. 52).1 Both counsel for Debtor and The Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a The Bank of New York, successor to JPMorgan Chase Bank, as trustee, for the holders of the Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities Trust 2004-SD3, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2004-SD3 (“Creditor”) made arguments on their respective positions regarding the motion. Upon review of the record, filed documents, and consideration of the arguments from the parties, the Court grants, in part, the Motion to Reconsider for the reasons outlined below. |
| 3/29/2024 | 17-20334 | 21-00053 | Heather Patrice Hogrobrooks Harris | This proceeding came before the Court on the City of Memphis’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Demolition Costs Assessed against the Real Property Located at 3703 E. Mart Road, Memphis, Tennessee, and Heather Patrice Hogrobrooks Harris’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Motion to Strike Defendant’s Proffer. For reasons outlined below, the Court abstains from deciding the underlying issue of adequate notice of demolition of 3703 E. Mart Road and the related demolition fees, and dismisses this adversary proceeding. |
| 3/29/2024 | 23-20515 | | Shannetria Renee Newberry | matters before the Court stem from the United States Trustee’s (“UST”) efforts to address a consumer bankruptcy attorney’s dilatory actions in the case. On January 25, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., the Court heard arguments on the United States Trustee’s (the “UST’s”) Motion for Summary Judgment as to the UST’s Amended Motion to Examine Attorney Fees and For a Return of Fees.
The ultimate issue before the Court is whether Curtis D. Johnson, Jr. (“Mr. Johnson”) complied with the provisions of Bankruptcy Rule 2016(b) disclosure requirements and the mandate of 11 U.S.C. §§ 526-528 to have a written contract. For the reasons explained in this Opinion, the Court finds that the UST’s is entitled summary judgment, in part, on its Amended Motion to Examine Attorney Fees Under 11 U.S.C. § 329 and For a Return of Fees under 11 U.SC. §§ 526-528 for Failure to Have a Written Contract for Attorney Services.
The Court finds and concludes that the UST is entitled to partial summary judgment and a partial disgorgement of fees is appropriate. Mr. Johnson did not timely supplement his disclosure statement to disclose additional attorney’s fees received from the Revid Settlement, in violation of 11 U.S.C. § 329. Furthermore, there is no written contract between Mr. Johnson and Ms. Newberry that complies with the provision of 11 U.S.C. § 528(a)(1). |
| 3/12/2024 | 21-22144 | 23-00107 | Rico Marlo Upchurch | This adversary proceeding came before the Court on September 26, 2023, at 10:00 a.m., for a hearing on Rico Marlo Upchurch’s Complaint for Turnover of Vehicle Title and United Auto Credit Corporation’s Answer to Complaint for Turnover of Vehicle Title from United Auto Credit and Counterclaim for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. Upchurch contends that United Auto Credit’s secured claim (Claim 3-1) was paid in full as provided in his confirmed Chapter 13 Plan, and therefore, United Auto Credit should release its lien and transfer the vehicle title to Upchurch. United Auto Credit opposes the release of its lien and the turnover of vehicle title, contending that, under subsection 1325(a)(5)(B)(i) of the Bankruptcy Code, it retains the lien until Upchurch either pays the non-bankruptcy portion of the debt or obtains a discharge. The Court took under advisement the issue of whether the lien should be released, and title transferred to Upchurch. Upon review of the record, filed documents, consideration of the arguments by the parties, post-hearing supplemental filings, and relevant case law, the Court denies the Upchurch’s request for release of lien and turnover of the title before the entry of the Chapter 13 discharge, for reasons outlined below. |
| 2/23/2024 | 23-25405 | | Michael Edward Seebeck | This case came before the Court on February 6, 2024, at 10:30 a.m., on Michael Edward Seebeck’s (“Debtor’s”) Motion for Contempt and Sanctions (“Motion”). Debtor is pro se. Debtor sought to have Xfinity/Comcast (“Creditor”) sanctioned for violating the automatic stay for turning off and failing to reinstate Debtor’s internet service. Creditor was not initially noticed of the filing of the Debtor’s initial bankruptcy petition, and no response to Debtor’s motion was filed. Upon review of the record, filed documents, consideration of the Debtor’s arguments, and relevant case law, the Court denies the Motion for Contempt and Sanctions. |
| 2/20/2024 | 23-25351 | | Chauniece Deshae Washington | This case came before Court on February 6, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., on Marathon Management, LLC’s (“Creditor’s”) Motion for Refund of Court Fees. (ECF No. 23). The issue before the Court is whether the Creditor may seek a refund of the $199 fee which it paid for its motion for relief from stay, filed on the same day the Chapter 13 case was dismissed. For the reasons stated below, the Court denies Creditor’s Motion for Refund of Court Fees. |
| 1/22/2024 | 22-20924 | 23-00021 | Delores L. Brown | This proceeding came before the Court for a hearing on September 19, 2023, at 10:30 a.m., on Argolica, LLC, Limosa, LLC, and Land Home Financial Services, Inc.’s (“Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint (“Motion to Dismiss”) and Delores L. Brown’s (“Plaintiff’s”) Response in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“Response”). Upon review of the record, filed documents, and consideration of the argument from the parties, the Court denies the Motion to Dismiss for reasons outlined below. |
| 1/17/2024 | 19-21962 | | Rickey L. Alexander | This case came before the Court on January 9, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., on Dynasty Asset Recovery Services, LLC’s (“Dynasty’s”) Application for Payment of Unclaimed Funds. (ECF No. 59). Upon review of the record and for the reasons outlined in this order, the Court disapproves the application for unclaimed funds. |
| 9/11/2023 | 23-20515 | | Shannetria Renee Newberry | This case came before the Court on August 29, 2023, at 9:30 a.m., on the United States Trustee’s (“Movant”) Expedited Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery pursuant to Rule 37, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, made applicable in contested matters pursuant to Bankruptcy Rules 7037 and 9014, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. Movant’s motion to examine attorney’s fees pursuant to section 329(a) of the Bankruptcy Code is the underlying motion that gave rise to Movant’s request for production of documents and this motion to compel.
At issue is request for production of document number 8, (“Request 8”), which asks Shannetria Renee Newberry’s (“Debtor’s” or “Ms. Newberry’s”) counsel to turn over all evidence of communication about the meeting of creditors. Debtor’s attorney, Curtis Johnson (“Mr. Johnson”), proffered at the hearing that the text messages between he and Ms. Newberry are protected under the attorney-client privilege, and submitted screenshots of the text messages to the Court for in-camera review. The Court took the matter under advisement.
The Court reviewed the forty-two (42) pages of screenshots of the text messages submitted for in-camera review. Of the forty-two pages, only two pages fall within the scope of Request 8. The two pages contain information about the time of a creditors’ meeting, connecting online, and the type of document required to be presented at the meeting of creditors, and contain no legal advice. The Court concludes that the two pages are not protected by attorney-client privilege because they contain basic information about the meeting of creditors. The two pages of text messages regarding the meeting of creditors do not satisfy the elements of attorney-client privilege. The remaining forty (40) pages are outside the scope of Request 8 and shall not be turned over to Movant. |
| 9/1/2023 | 22-24419 | | Pamela D. Martin | The issue before this Court is whether the exempt portion of Debtor’s personal injury settlement proceeds should be disbursed to Debtor when the proceeds are claimed exempt and there is no objection to Debtor’s claimed exemptions. The Court concludes that the proceeds from the personal injury settlements are Debtor’s exempt assets to be disbursed to Debtor and not required to be turned over the Chapter 13 trustee. For the reasons explained below, the Debtor’s Motion to Approve Settlement is granted with the exempt proceeds to be disbursed to Debtor. |
| 9/1/2023 | 23-22086 | 23-00105 | Kekeya Anita Reynolds | This adversary proceeding came before the Court on August 29, 2023, at 9:30 a.m. on Kekeya Anita Reynolds’ (“Mrs. Reynolds’”) Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Partners for Payment Relief DE IV, LLC by Fay Servicing, LLC’s (Creditor’s”) Response in Opposition to Motion for Temporary Restraining Order.1 Mrs. Reynolds sought to enjoin the Creditor from foreclosing on her real property, located at 4237 Durango Lane, Memphis, Tennessee, 38109 (the “Property”). |
| 8/10/2023 | 23-22806 | | Parrias Aerial Parker | This case came before the Court on August 8, 2023, at 10 a.m., on Parrias Aerial Parker’s (“Debtor’s”) Verified Motion to Impose Automatic Stay. For the reasons explained in this order, the Court finds that the Motion to Impose the Stay was untimely filed and concludes the motion should be denied.
Pursuant to subsection 362(c)(3) of the Code, the automatic stay terminates on the thirtieth (30th) day in a newly filed case when one filed case was pending and then dismissed within one year of the newly filed case. Upon notice and hearing, the bankruptcy court may extend or continue the automatic stay as outlined in subsection 362(c)(3). However, the hearing on the motion to extend the automatic stay must be completed before the expiration of the 30-day period.
Here, Debtor’s 2022 Case was pending and then dismissed May 31, 2023, within the year of the filing of the present case. The automatic stay remained in place for 30 days after the petition date. On the thirtieth (30th) day, the automatic stay was terminated with respect to the Debtor. This Court is not able to extend the automatic stay that has been terminated with respect to the Debtor or reimpose the automatic stay. Any motion to extend or reimpose the stay should have been filed before the expiration of the 30-day period. Debtor’s Motion to Impose Stay was untimely filed outside of the 30-day deadline and should be denied. |
| 6/20/2023 | 22-20924 | 23-00021 | Delores L. Brown | This adversary proceeding came before the Court on June 13, 2023, at 10:30 a.m. on second scheduled pre-trial conference whether the Court considered (1) Dolores L. Brown’s (“Plaintiff’s”), Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, (2) Land Home Financial Services, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss, (3) Land Home Financial Services, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss, (4) Plaintiff/ Debtor’s Response in Opposition To Defendant Argolian, LLLC’s Motion to Dismiss, (5) Plaintiff/ Debtors’ Response in Opposition to Defendant Land Home Financial Services, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss, and (6) Land Home Financial Services, Inc.’s and Argolica, LLC’s Reply to Plaintiff’s Response to Motions to Dismiss. (Adv. Proc. ECF Nos. 1, 15, 18, 23, 24, and 27).
Plaintiff did not file a certificate of service in this adversary proceeding evidencing that Plaintiff served the Complaint and Summons on the Defendants. At the initial pre-trial conference held on April 18, 2023, the Court pointed out the deficiencies in service and issued an Alias Summons, instructing Plaintiff’s counsel to file a certificate of service showing that the Alias Summons and Complaint have been served on the Defendants.
On May 18, 2023, Land Home Financial Services filed a Motion to Dismiss all claims against it in the complaint, asserting, inter alia, that the complaint was not properly served. On May 22, 2023, Argolian, LLC, also filed a Motion to Dismiss all claims against it in the complaint, asserting, inter alia, that the complaint was not properly served. Defendant Argolian, LLC also contends that Plaintiff failed to name the proper party defendant. Named Defendant U.S. Bank, N.A. did not appear or otherwise respond to the Complaint.
Based on the Court’s review of the motions, responses, filed certificates of service, and arguments of counsel for Plaintiff and Defendants, the Court concludes that the complaint should be dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff shall serve the newly issued Summons with the amended complaint consistent with Bankruptcy Rule 7004, with special attention given to Bankruptcy Rule 7004(h) for any defendant that is an Insured Depository Institution. |
| 6/20/2023 | 22-24041 | | D'Asia N. Thompson | This case came on for hearing before the Court on May 16, 2023, on D’Asia N. Thompson’s (“Debtor’s”) Motion to Reopen Closed Case and Request for Fee Waiver (“Motion to Reopen”) and Motion for Sanctions Against Creditor Mill Creek Apartments for Violation of the Automatic Stay Under 11 U.S.C. § 362 and Request for Expedited Hearing (“Motion for Sanctions”). Debtor sought to reopen this case for the sole purpose of filing a motion for sanctions against Mill Creek Apartments (“Creditor”) for violation of the automatic stay when Creditor proceeded with evicting the Debtor from her rental residence. Creditor filed responses to both the motions to reopen the case and motion for sanctions, contending that the case should not be reopened because the motion for sanctions is meritless and the motion for sanctions should be denied because the automatic stay was not in effect at the time of the execution of the Writ of Possession and Creditor did not know of the bankruptcy at the time it began the eviction process. In its supplemental filing, Creditor further seeks to annul the stay retroactively for equitable reasons. This Court has granted Debtor’s motion to reopen to rule on the merits of the Motion for Sanctions and request for annulment of the automatic stay. Upon review of the record, filed documents, consideration of the argument by the parties, and relevant case law, the Court denies the Motion for Sanctions with prejudice and annul the automatic stay for reasons outlined below. |
| 4/10/2023 | 23-20342 | | Tevina McGee | This case came before the Court on Tevina McGee’s (“Debtor’s”) Verified Motion to Extend Automatic Stay - Expedited Hearing Requested (“Motion to Extend Stay”). For the reasons explained in this order, the Court finds that the Motion to Extend Stay was untimely filed and concludes that the motion should be denied. |
| 4/7/2023 | 10-30689 | 22-00118 | Roger Dale Morgan | This adversary proceeding came before the Court for a hearing on March 28, 2023, on Roger Dale Morgan’s Third Amended Complaint. Upon review of the record, filed documents, and consideration of the argument from Mr. Morgan the Court finds that the Third Amended Complaint was improperly served on the United States Department of Education. Mr. Morgan has fourteen (14) days from the entry of this Order to serve the Alias Summons and Third Amended Complaint on the United States Department of Education in accordance with Bankruptcy Rule 7004(b)(4) and (5). |
| 3/31/2023 | 17-20334 | 21-00053 | Heather Patrice Hogrobrooks Harris | Heather Patrice Hogrobrooks-Harris (“Hogrobrooks-Harris”), proceeding pro se, commenced an adversary proceeding against Shelby County, Tennessee (“County”) and the City of Memphis, Tennessee (“City”), seeking to be relieved of taxes, penalties, and associated attorney’s fees.1 In the main case, the County and the City filed a Motion for Order Confirming No Automatic Stay in Effect.2 Upon review of the record, filed documents, and consideration of the arguments from parties, the Court finds and concludes that automatic stay is not in effect and the discharge injunction does not bar the City and County from enforcing their statutory lien as described in section 67-5-2101(a) of the Tennessee Code. |
| 3/23/2023 | 12-24163 | 22-00118 | Stephen Graham Hill | This proceeding came before the Court on December 20, 2022, on Escapes! To the Shores Condominium Association, Inc.’s (“Escapes” or “Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss Complaint. On October 24, 2022, Stephen Graham Hill (“Hill” or “Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint to determine whether a claim for damages that arose from defects from a construction project was discharged as a part of his Chapter 7 case. Escapes moved to dismiss the Complaint under the Rooker-Feldman and collateral estoppel doctrines. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court instructed the parties to submit post-hearing memoranda addressing the issues raised in the motion to dismiss and response. Upon review of the record, pleadings, supplemental filings, and consideration of the arguments made at the hearing, the Court denies Escapes’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. The Court concludes that the Rooker-Feldman and collateral estoppel doctrines are inapplicable to the case at bar. |
| 1/26/2023 | 20-20371 | | Rockie Lane Hilliard | This case came on for hearing before the Court on October 26, 2022, on Rockie Lane Hilliard’s (“Debtor’s”) Objection to Claim 15-1. Debtor contends that Proof of Claim 15-1 should be disallowed because there is no debt owed to Jazmine Tricoche (“Creditor”). The Court took this matter under advisement. Upon review of the record, filed documents, consideration of the argument by the parties, and relevant case law, the Court sustains Debtor’s objection to Proof of Claim 15-1 and disallows Proof of Claim 15-1, without prejudice. |
| 12/12/2022 | 18-23444 | | Vozve S. Parker | This case came on for hearing before the Court on August 16, 2022, on Vozve Parker’s Motion to Nullify Administrative Order Allowing Amended Claim.1 Vozve Parker (“Debtor”) contends that Bank of America’s (“Creditor’s”) second amended claim should be disallowed based on this Court’s prior order holding that Debtor has cured all pre-petition arrears. The Court took this matter under advisement. Upon review of the record, filed documents, consideration of the argument by the parties, post-hearing supplemental filings, and relevant case law, the Court grants Debtor’s Motion to Nullify Administrative Order and disallows Bank of America’s second amended proof of claim 10-3. |
| 11/18/2022 | 19-28780 | | Robert McGill Edwards | On September 7, 2022, the Chapter 13 trustee turned over a check to the Bankruptcy Clerk’s Office for unclaimed funds in the amount of $63.38, which arose from a check that was made payable to John R. Cheadle, Jr., Esq. The unclaimed funds relate to Creditor Harpeth Financial Services, LLC (Claim 14), and Mr. John R. Cheadle is the Creditor’s attorney.
On September 20, 2022, Debtor, proceeding pro se, filed an Application for Payment of Unclaimed Funds in the amount of $63.38.4 The Bankruptcy Clerk’s Office processed and submitted an Order Granting Application for Payment of Unclaimed Funds, which was entered on October 26, 2022.5 The Court now vacates its Order pursuant to Rule 60(b) (1) and (6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (incorporated through Rule 9024, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure): mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, or any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.
Section 347(a) “is unambiguous and clearly expresses Congress’ intent that unclaimed funds are to be paid into the court to be held in trust for the claimant, and not redistributed to other creditors.” Debtors are not “claimants” because they are not the intended payees of the funds, and as such, “the funds belong to the original creditors of the debtors’ bankruptcy estates.”
In this case, Debtor is not entitled to the unclaimed funds in the amount of $63.38. |
| 9/13/2022 | 20-20626 | | Odessa Richardson, Jr. and Patricia Ann Richardson | This case came before the Court for a hearing on May 10, 2022, on Odessa Richardson, Jr. and Patricia Ann Richardson’s (“Debtors’”) Motion to Surrender Personal Property and Reduce Plan Payments and Memphis Municipal Employees Federal Credit Union’s (“Creditor’s”) Response, titled Objection to Debtors’ Motion to Surrender (“Creditor’s Response”).
At the hearing on Debtors’ Motion to Surrender Personal Property and Reduce Plan Payment, Debtors’ attorney proffered that the vehicle is not operable and needs a new engine, and repairs would cost approximately $5,000. Debtors’ attorney explained that the vehicle is being held at the Land Rover dealership.
Creditor contends that the status of the claim must remain as secured, and any remaining balance owed to the Creditor (after the surrendered vehicle is liquidated) must continue to be paid as a secured claim under Debtors’ confirmed Chapter 13 Plan. Debtors, in their motion, specifically requested that Creditor’s claim should be reclassified as a general unsecured claim after the vehicle is surrendered and liquidated. However, at the hearing, Debtors offered no legal authority against the status of the claim remaining as a secured claim. |
| 7/12/2022 | 19-25279 | | Eddie Lewis Hines | This case came on for hearing before the Court on April 19, 2022, on the Chapter 13 Trustee’s Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice. The Chapter 13 trustee contends that Eddie Lewis Hines’s case should be dismissed with prejudice because he falsified this Court’s prior order to incur additional debt by changing the date of issuance. Mr. Hines, proceeding pro se, has not responded to the motion and did not attend the hearing held on April 19, 2022. Upon review of the record, filed documents, exhibits, and consideration of the argument by the Trustee, the Court finds that Mr. Hines’s actions warrant dismissal with prejudice. |
| 5/31/2022 | 17-20334 | 21-00053 | Heather Patrice Hogrobrooks Harris | The issue before the Court is whether Shelby County Trustee’s Requests for Admission should be deemed admitted under Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because Hogrobrooks-Harris’s responses were submitted beyond the 30-day deadline. |