| Filed Date | | AdvNo | Debtor | Issue |
| 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”). |
| 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. |
| 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. |
