| Filed Date | | AdvNo | Debtor | Issue |
| 7/2/2025 | 25-20260 | | Chasity Marie McDonald | This case came before the Court on June 17, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., on Towne Mortgage Company’s, dba AmeriCU Mortgage (“Towne Mortgage’s”) Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Debtor’s Motion Under Rule 3002.1 (“Motion for Reconsideration”). The issue before the Court is two-fold. First, is whether the Motion Under Rule 3002.1(e) (“Rule 3002.1(e) Motion”) was properly served consistent with the Bankruptcy Rules. Second, is whether sufficient notice was given regarding the hearing on the Rule 3002.1(e) Motion. Towne Mortgage argued that it did not receive a copy of the motion and it was not aware of the hearing on the Rule 3002.1(e) Motion. Chastity Marie McDonald (“Ms. McDonald”) argued that the Rule 3002.1(e) Motion was properly served on both Creditor and its counsel, Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer, PA (“Law Firm”). |
| 6/26/2025 | 25-21597 | | Kisha Cherida Cole | This case came before the Court on May 13, 2025, at 1:30 p.m., on Kisha Cherida Cole’s (“Ms. Cole’s”) Expedited Motion for Turnover of Tangible Personal Property Under Section 542(a) (“Motion for Turnover”); On Time Diesel Repair, LLC’s, (“On Time’s”) Response to Debtor’s Expedited Motion for Turnover of Tangible Personal Property Under Section 542(a) (“Response”); Ms. Cole’s Memorandum in Support of Debtor’s Expedited Motion for Turnover of Tangible Personal Property Under Section 542(a) (“Memorandum”); Ms. Cole’s Notice of Documents Filed4; and On Time’s Notice of Filing. Ms. Cole sought to recover a 2012 Hino 268 Truck from On Time. |
| 6/16/2025 | 24-22321 | 24-00113 | Winter Craigen | This adversary proceeding came before the Court on the United States Trustee’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof (“Motion for Summary Judgment”), Defendant’s Response to the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
(“Response”), and United States Trustee’s Reply to Defendant’s Response to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“Reply”). After reviewing the record, filed documents, and considering the written arguments from the United States Trustee (“Plaintiff”) and Winter Craigen (“Ms. Craigen”), the Court denies the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. |
| 4/24/2025 | 24-20787 | | Ave Brown Chase | This case came before the Court on February 11, 2025, at 2:00 p.m., on the chapter 13 trustee’s Objection to Confirmation and Confirmation hearings. The only remaining issue in the chapter 13 trustee’s objection to confirmation was whether Ava Brown Chase (“Ms. Chase”) had filed her tax returns. Ms. Chase has submitted her tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) at least twice. But the IRS took the position that the returns were deficient. |
| 3/31/2025 | 21-24045 | | Richard M. Eisenberg | This case came before the Court on Stacey Lucterhand’s and Eric Eisenberg’s (the
“Applicants’”) amended Pro Se Motion for Payment of Unclaimed Funds (“Application”) and supporting documents seeking surplus funds of $3,402.21 from their late father’s chapter 13 case. Upon review of the record and arguments from the parties, the Application is not approved. |
| 3/31/2025 | 23-25405 | | Michael Edward Seebeck | This case came before the Court on Ashley Wisch of EXP Realty’s (“Realtor’s”) Application of Ashley Wisch of EXP Realty for Allowance and Payment of Professional Fees (“Fee Application”).1 A hearing was conducted on January 7, 2025, and concluded on January 28, 2025. Upon review of the record, filed documents, evidence presented, and consideration of the arguments from the parties, the Fee Application is approved, in part, for the reasons explained below. |
| 3/10/2025 | 25-20591 | 25-00009 | Matthew Richard McKean | This adversary proceeding came before the Court on February 26, 2025, at 1:30 p.m., on Michael Richard McKean’s (“Debtor’s,” “Plaintiff’s,” or “Mr. McKean’s”) Complaint to Compel Turnover of Certain Property from Defendant (“Complaint”), Whitney Hargrave’s1 (“Creditor’s,” or “Defendant’s,” or “Ms. Hargrave’s”) Response to Plaintiff’s Complaint to Compel Turnover (“Response”), and Creditor’s Supplemental Response to Debtor’s Motion for Turnover (“Supplemental Response”).2 Plaintiff sought to recover a 2002 Cadillac Escalade, a 2016 Chevrolet Colorado, a 2009 Harley-Davidson Fatboy, a utility trailer, and three firearms from Defendant. Upon review of the record, filed documents, consideration of the parties’ arguments, and relevant law, the Court grants Plaintiff’s request for order directing turnover of the described property. |
| 2/14/2025 | 22-23059 | | Rolesha C. Edmondson | This case came before the Court on Bruce A. Ralston’s (“Mr. Ralston’s”) Application for Allowance of Compensation and Reimbursement of Necessary Expenses for Ralston Buchanan, PLLC (“Fee Application”). Mr. Ralston represents Rolesha C. Edmondson (the “Debtor” or “Ms. Edmondson”) in this Chapter 13 case. |
| 1/6/2025 | 20-24156 | | Sheila Wright Zeigler and Larry Zeigler, Jr. | This case came before the Court on the United States of America, acting through the Internal Revenue Service’s (the “IRS’s”) Motion Seeking Dismissal, or Alternatively, Modification of the Plan to Provide for Repayment of Post-Petition Taxes (“Motion to Dismiss or Modify”).1 Sheila Wright Ziegler and Larry Zeigler, Jr. (“Debtors” or the “Zeiglers”) filed no written response. On September 10, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., the Court conducted a hearing on the IRS’s Motion to Dismiss or Modify. The hearing was continued to October 8, 2024, at 10:30 a.m., to allow both parties additional time to present their respective arguments supporting and opposing the Motion to Dismiss or Modify. Upon review of the record, filed documents, evidence proffered, and consideration of the arguments from the parties, the Court denies the Motion to Dismiss or Modify. |
| 1/6/2025 | 24-22894 | | Julianka Michelle Jackson | This case came before the Court on Julianka Michelle Jackson’s (“Ms. Jackson’s”) Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Chapter 7, or in the Alternative, to Convert Case to Chapter 13 (“Motion to Dismiss or Convert”) and Chapter 7 Trustee Brian Matthew Glass’s (“Mr. Glass’s”) Trustee’s Objection to Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Chapter 7 or in the Alterative, to Convert Case to Chapter 13 (“Response”).1 On September 24, 2024, the Court conducted an evidentiary hearing on Ms. Jackson’s Motion to Dismiss or Convert and Mr. Glass’s Response. Upon review of the record and arguments from the parties, the Motion to Dismiss or Convert is granted. |
| 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. |
|
