| Filed Date | | AdvNo | Debtor | Issue |
| 9/30/2026 | 23-25278 | | Tijuana Lanette Ford | The issue is whether the insurance proceeds should be applied to the remaining balance of the contract, or whether the insurance proceeds should be used to pay off the remaining balance of the secured claim (provided for in the confirmed chapter 13 plan), with excess proceeds distributed to Debtor. |
| 9/30/2026 | 25-22423 | | James Earl Belton | The issue is whether the Credit Union is entitled to relief from the co-debtor stay pursuant to subsection 1301(c)(2) when the confirmed Plan provides for payment of a portion of the secured claim at the Till interest rate (less the contract rate) and the unsecured portion of the claim will be paid consistent with other allowed general unsecured claims. This Court must determine whether to accept Debtor’s argument that the “plain language” of subsection 1302(c)(2) supports denying the creditor’s request for relief from the co-debtor stay or whether the case law developed around this subsection supports granting relief from the co-debtor stay. |
| 9/30/2026 | 25-22423 | | James Earl Belton | The issue before the Court is whether the Credit Union is entitled to relief from the co-debtor stay pursuant to subsection 1301(c)(2) when the confirmed Plan provides for payment of a portion of the secured claim at the Till interest rate (less the contract rate) and the unsecured portion of the claim will be paid consistent with other allowed general unsecured claims. |
| 9/30/2026 | 25-25381 | | Frederick J. Elam | The issue before the Court is whether a chapter 13 case should be dismissed with prejudice and the debtor should be barred from future filings for a period of three (3) years when the debtor abused the bankruptcy system to avoid paying his mortgage. |
| 8/25/2026 | 25-23245 | | Dwan Akoi Riley | Reconsideration of Order Dismissing Case |
| 7/31/2026 | 25-21889 | | Agnes Louise Clark | Whether there is cause under section 362 to grant relief from the automatic stay when the tenant Debtor assumed a lease under the chapter 13 plan and the landlord creditor did not object to the assumption. |
| 7/24/2026 | 25-22916 | | Nakisha Lacole Ross | The issue before the Court is whether a Chapter 7 case should be converted to a Chapter 13 case on the Debtor's Motion over the Chapter 7 Trustee's objection for failure to disclose assets when the case has never been previously converted. |
| 3/9/2026 | 24-22321 | 24-00135 | Winter Craigen | Whether the cash surrender value of Defendant-insured's life insurance policy is property of the estate subject to the Chapter 7 Trustee when the Debtor did not file an amended Schedule C exempting the cash surrender value from the estate. |
| 2/20/2026 | 25-20591 | | Matthew Richard McKean | The issue before this Court is whether a creditor's late-filed claim should be allowed when only the creditor's attorney (and not the creditor, herself) was noticed of the bankruptcy case. |
| 12/30/2025 | 25-25591 | | Elizabeth Patrice Nate Elion | The issue before the Court is whether a creditor violated an automatic stay and to decide to grant a nunc pro tunc annulment of the automatic stay due to notice received outside of business hours. |
| 12/20/2025 | 25-23044 | | Sharon Yvonne Faulkner | The issue before the Court is whether a secured creditor is entitled to relief from an automatic stay after keeping collateral while receiving payments from debtor. |
| 9/30/2025 | 20-20291 | | Jo Alma Stinson | The issue before the Court is the impact of an automatic stay on the City of Memphis and the Receiver’s actions on property of the estate. |
| 8/22/2025 | 24-22030 | | Evelyn Thomas | The issues before the Court are the following: whether the Court should grant the Bank’s motion for relief from the automatic stay under subsection 362(d), whether the Court should sustain or deny the Bank’s first objection to confirmation for bad faith filing, whether to sustain the Bank’s amended objection to confirmation or allow the case to proceed
under Bankruptcy Rule 1016(b). |
| 8/19/2025 | 25-20475 | | Jacqueline Scales | The issue before the court is whether a debtor may add a post-petition debt to a pending Chapter 7 bankruptcy case for discharge. |
| 8/18/2025 | 22-20924 | 23-00021 | Delores L. Brown | The is before the Court is whether the doctrines of res judicata and judicial estoppel supports Defendants’ motion for summary judgment when there are disputed issues of material facts, and it is not clear that Defendants are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. |
| 7/29/2025 | 24-22321 | 24-00135 | Winter Craigen | The issue before the Court is whether a defendant’s failure to timely respond to a complaint constitutes good cause to warrant the entry of default under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 55(c). |
| 7/2/2025 | 25-20260 | | Chasity Marie McDonald | The issue before the Court is whether a creditor received proper service of a debtor’s Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1(e) motion and adequate notice of the hearing such that reconsideration of the Court’s prior order is warranted. |
| 6/26/2025 | 25-21597 | | Kisha Cherida Cole | The issues before the Court are the following: (1) whether the creditor has a valid lien under Miss. Code Ann. § 85-7-107, (2) what portion of the creditor’s debt is secured, and (3) whether the debtor should pay the creditor’s secured debt before the creditor turns over collateral to the debtor. |
| 6/16/2025 | 24-22321 | 24-00113 | Winter Craigen | The issue before the Court is whether a Chapter 7 debtor should be denied a discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(3) or § 727(a)(5) for failing to maintain adequate financial records and satisfactorily explain the loss of assets. |
| 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. |
|
