| Filed Date | | AdvNo | Debtor | Issue |
| 9/16/2026 | 09-25231 | 25-00085 | Jesse Sandlin | The Court considered the allegations in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint to determine whether it had subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(b) and 157 providing for core and "related to" jurisdiction, and whether the Court would permissively abstain pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1). |
| 6/12/2026 | 25-25681 | | Jamtarsha L. Sanders | The Court considered the provisions of Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8007 pursuant to the four factors set forth by the Sixth Circuit in Michigan Coal. of RadioActive Mat'l Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog, 945 F.2d 150 (6th Cir. 1991) to determine whether a motion for a stay pending appeal should be granted. |
| 6/12/2026 | 25-25681 | | Jamtarsha L. Sanders | Incorporating its Opinion and Order denying a related Motion to stay the bankruptcy proceedings pending appeal [DE 87] and the fact that a denial of the Debtor's Motion at bar to enforce sanctions and compel payment of the judgment awarded in her favor would effectively nullify the Court's related order denying the stay pending appeal, the Court found that public interest and justice is served by granting Debtor's motion to enforce the Court's order awarding sanctions and compelling payment of the same. |
| 5/18/2026 | 25-11041 | 25-05059 | John Dustin Pinkston | The issue before the Court is whether the Third-Party Complaint filed pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7014 set forth a basis for third-party Defendant's liability to the Defendant/third-party Plaintiff based on a theory of unjust enrichment sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss the Third-Party Complaint. |
| 3/5/2026 | 25-21549 | | Tonny Durell Payton | The Court conducted an analysis of Tennessee law to determine whether an announcement of a settlement in chambers by both parties' counsel, without the submission of a written settlement agreement, constituted a binding settlement agreement when the Debtor no longer consented and refused to sign a written agreement. The Court also considered Movant's request for attorney's fees and found that, under the American Rule and Tennessee law, no statutory nor contractual basis supported an award of attorney's fees. |
| 2/27/2026 | 25-23473 | | Paula Antwanette Milner | Upon a review of the evidence submitted, the Court determined that Debtor successfully established, by a preponderance of the evidence, actual damages pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(k) for attorney's fees and out-of-pocket expenses, and that Debtor's testimony regarding counseling and treatment for mental health issues was sufficient to establish a claim for damages for emotional distress resulting from Respondents' willful violation of the automatic stay. The Court also found, in its discretion, that punitive damages in the amount of three times the Debtor's actual damages were appropriate and ordered each of the Respondents to pay 50% of the actual and punitive damages ordered. |
| 2/27/2026 | 25-25681 | | Jamtarsha L. Sanders | Upon a review of the evidence submitted, the Court determined that Debtor successfully established, by a preponderance of the evidence, actual damages pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(k) for out-of-pocket expenses and lost wages resulting from Landlord's willful violation of the automatic stay. Debtor failed to present sufficient corroborative evidence, however, to establish the necessary causal connection between her emotional harm and Landlord's willful violation of the automatic stay and Debtor's claim for damages for emotional distress was accordingly denied. The Court also found, in its discretion, that punitive damages in the amount of five times the Debtor's actual damages were appropriate but would be offset by the amount of outstanding rent due in order to cure all rent arrearages if Debtor opted to remain in her apartment. |
| 2/27/2026 | 25-25913 | | Darrance LaQuann Cain | Upon a review of the evidence submitted, the Court determined that Debtor successfully established, by a preponderance of the evidence, actual damages pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(k) for attorney's fees, damaged goods and out-of-pocket expense resulting from Respondents' willful violation of the automatic stay. The Court also found, in its discretion, that punitive damages in the amount of three times the Debtor's actual damages were appropriate and ordered each of the Respondents to pay 50% of the actual and punitive damages ordered. |
| 2/12/2026 | 25-23473 | | Paula Antwanette Milner | The Court considered whether the post-petition actions of Debtor's landlord and landlord's counsel in proceeding with a forcible entry and detainer action against the Debtor in state court constituted a willful violation of the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(k) so that actual and punitive damages were warranted. |
| 2/12/2026 | 25-25681 | | Jamtarsha L. Sanders | The Court considered whether the post-petition actions of Debtor's landlord and in proceeding with a forcible entry and detainer action against the Debtor in state court constituted a willful violation of the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C.
§ 362(k) so that actual and punitive damages were warranted. |
| 2/12/2026 | 25-25913 | | Darrance LaQuann Cain | The Court considered whether the post-petition actions of Debtor's landlord and landlord's counsel in proceeding with a forcible entry and detainer action against the Debtor in state court constituted a willful violation of the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(k) so that actual and punitive damages were warranted. |
| 12/22/2025 | 25-22822 | | LaRon Andrew Jones | Where the Debtor's proposed Chapter 13 Plan provided for 0% interest on mortgagee's claim, the Court found that pursuant to the plurality decision in Till v. SCS Credit Corp., 541 U.S. 465 (2004), the appropriate interest rate to meet the "value" requirement for confirmation under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(5)(B)(ii) in this case is the U.S. Treasury rate with an added risk adjustment of 1.5%. |
| 12/16/2025 | 25-25292 | | Central Junction, LLC | The Court considered a motion for relief from the automatic stay and determined that Movant met its burden to show there was no equity in the real property at issue pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2)(A), but then found that Debtor failed to meet its burden of showing that the property is necessary for an effective reorganization under § 362(d)(2)(b) and (g)(2). |
| 12/11/2025 | 25-24333 | | Avery Brook Bridges | The Court considered whether the automatic stay should be terminated under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) so that movants could proceed with pending state court litigation against the Debtor. |
| 11/6/2025 | 25-23647 | | Source Mortgage & Funding, Inc. | Upon consideration of the Debtor's Motion to extend the time for filing the status conference report required under 11 U.S.C. § 1188(c), the Court examined the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 1188 and relevant case law to determine whether circumstances existed "for which the debtor should not justly be held accountable." |
| 10/22/2025 | 24-23946 | | Frazetta Ventures, LLC | The Court considered whether, under applicable Tennessee law governing contract interpretation, Debtor had a valid claim for damages against its landlord arising from a fire at the leased premises when the lease contained an exculpatory clause in favor of the landlord. |
| 10/20/2025 | 25-23647 | | Source Mortgage & Funding, Inc. | The Court considered whether Debtor's attorney would be employed as a professional under Bankruptcy Code section 327 and Bankruptcy Rule 2014 nunc pro tunc when the application to employ was not timely filed. |
| 10/3/2025 | 25-22442 | | Howard Jones | The Court considered factors to determine whether the automatic stay should be terminated under 362(d)(1) to allow the Movant to file a cross complaint against the Debtor in state court litigation. |
| 8/14/2025 | 19-24646 | | Carolyn Ann Rivers | The Court examined Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3002.1 and its recent amendments, as well as Bankruptcy Code sections 704(a) and 1302, to consider who should bear the burden of postpetition mortgage escrow fees when the mortgagee filed several notices of payment change yet the mortgage payments were not increased accordingly to account for the escrow deficiency. |
| 7/8/2025 | 23-21037 | 25-00044 | Burrell Farms and Gardens, LLC | The Court considered whether Plaintiff satisfied the four factors required for granting Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief, including whether Plaintiff had waived an argument by a failure to raise it at trial and whether a forum selection clause controlled. |
| 6/20/2025 | 24-20187 | | Charles Anthony Braden | The Court considered whether the Chapter 13 trustee's objection to a late-filed claim served a sufficient purpose pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 704(a)(5) and 1302(b)(1) when the trustee's position regarding the late-filed claims is inconsistent. |
| 6/13/2025 | 19-22677 | | Wayne Lenard Bins | The Court considered whether the Creditor/Mortgagee's Response to the Trustee's Notice of Final Cure Payment filed pursuant to Fed.R. Bankr. P. 3002.1(g) complied with the mandates of the Rule. |
| 6/11/2025 | 23-21037 | | Burrell Farms and Gardens, LLC | The Court considered whether the party objecting to Creditors' proofs of claims offered evidence sufficient to overcome the evidentiary effect of the properly-filed claims. |
| 4/17/2025 | 24-22189 | 24-00055 | Janice Bell | The Court considered whether the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleged plausible causes of action arising from a foreclosure sufficient to withstand the Defendant's Motions to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). |
| 3/24/2025 | 23-24161 | | Olga R. Ingram | The issue was whether a trustee's sale of the Debtor's residence would realize sufficient value and benefit for the Debtor's unsecured creditors to justify the trustee's liquidation of marital property. |
|
