| Filed Date | | AdvNo | Debtor | Issue |
| 9/9/2024 | 23-23130 | 23-00094 | Michael S. Yager and Rebekah H. Yager | This adversary proceeding came before the Court on Guy Kimura and Laurie Kimura’s (“Plaintiffs’”) and Michael S. Yager and Rebekah H. Yager’s (“Defendants’”) cross-motions for summary judgment and responses. The parties argued their motions for summary judgment before the Court on April 23, 2024, at 1:30 p.m. The central dispute in this proceeding is whether debts arising from a jury verdict and state court judgment are excepted from the discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) and (B), and/or (a)(6). The Court finds and concludes that the summary judgment motions are granted in part and denied in part. |
| 8/29/2024 | 23-26280 | | Jayme Nicole Nevels | This case came before the Court on Margaret M. Chesney’s (“Ms. Chesney’s”) Motion to Dismiss Chapter 13 Case (“Motion to Dismiss”) and Jayme Nicole Nevels’ (“Ms. Nevels’”) Debtor’s Response to Motion to Dismiss (“Response”).1 The Court conducted an evidentiary hearing on May 16, 2024, at 1:00 p.m., on the Motion to Dismiss and Response. Upon review of the record and arguments from the parties, the Motion to Dismiss is denied. |
| 8/28/2024 | 23-24657 | | Marcus D. Dorsey | This case came before the Court on Progress Residential Borrower 12, LLC’s (“Creditor”) Motion to Terminate Automatic Stays, Including Any Co-Debtor Stay, as to Progress Residential Borrower 12, LLC (“Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay”) and Marcus D. Dorsey’s (“Mr. Dorsey’s” or “Debtor’s”) Response to Progress Residential Borrower 12, LLC’s Motion to Terminate Automatic Stay (“Response”).1 A hearing was conducted on April 16, 2024, and concluded on April 30, 2024. Upon review of the record, filed documents, evidence presented, and consideration of the arguments from the parties, the Court grants the Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay. |
| 8/22/2024 | 23-20702 | | Pamela Bright Briars | This case came before the Court on the United States Trustee’s Motion to Dismiss Case Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(2) or (3) (“Motion to Dismiss”) and Pamela Bright Briars’ (“Ms. Briars’” or “Debtor’s”) Response to the United States Trustee’s Motion to Dismiss (“Response”).1 A trial was conducted on November 16, 2023, and December 7, 2023. Upon review of the record and arguments from the parties, the Motion to Dismiss is denied for the reasons explained below. |
| 8/22/2024 | 23-21985 | | Phoebe Fryerson | This case came before the Court on the United States Trustee’s Motion to Dismiss Case Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(2) or (b)(3) (“Motion to Dismiss”) and Phoebe Fryerson’s (“Ms. Fryerson’s” or “Debtor’s”) Response to the United States Trustee’s Motion to Dismiss (“Response”).1 A trial was conducted on March 21, 2024. Upon review of the record and arguments from the parties, the Motion to Dismiss is denied. |
| 6/17/2024 | 23-25274 | | Frederick James Elam | This case came before the Court on June 4, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., on Frederick James Elam’s (“Debtor’s”) Motion to Refund Bankruptcy Fee. (ECF No. 48). The issue before the Court is whether Debtor may seek a refund of the $313 filing fee which is an administrative fee that debtors are required to pay to commence their petition under the Bankruptcy Code. For the reasons stated below, the Court denies Debtor’s Motion to Refund Bankruptcy Fee. |
| 6/13/2024 | 23-25274 | | Frederick James Elam | This case came before the Court on Frederick James Elam’s (“Debtor’s”) Motion to Reinstate Case and HSBC Bank U.S.A., N.A.’s (“Creditor’s”) Response to Motion to Reinstate. (ECF Nos. 36 and 39). Debtor is not represented by counsel. Debtor’s daughter spoke on his behalf when Debtor appeared before the Court (because of Debtor’s stated hearing impairment). On March 26, 2024, the Court conducted the initial hearing on Debtor’s motion to reinstate the case, but the hearing was continued to April 23, 2024, to allow Debtor to obtain bankruptcy counsel and file a confirmable chapter 13 plan. On April 23, 2024, Debtor did not appear at the hearing, and the Court continued the matter again for a special setting requiring Debtor to appear in person and explain to the Court why his case should be reinstated. |
| 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 | 22-00065 | 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. |
|