Posts by Kiem Law, PLLC

“Under Fla. Stat. § 726.110, causes of action arising under section 726.105(1)(a) are extinguished on the later of 4 years after the transfer or 1 year after it could reasonably have been discovered, and causes of action arising under section 726.105(1)(b) are extinguished 4 years after the transfer. BAICO does not dispute that $260,500 of…

“The determination of whether to grant a stay pending appeal is left to the discretion of the Court. If a stay pending appeal is warranted, the Court may condition the stay on the posting of “a bond or other security.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8007(a)(1)(B) (as amended effective December 1, 2018). The bond or security…

Bakst v. Dunn 8-31-2019 EPK – “[A] transfer or concealment made with the actual intent to hinder or delay a creditor is sufficient for denial of discharge, even if there is no actual fraudulent intent.” Id. at 109-10 (citing NCNB Texas Nat’l Bank v. Bowyer (In re Bowyer), 916 F.2d 1056, 1059 (5th Cir. 1990),…

Pursuant to the Southern District of Florida Local Bankruptcy Rules 4004-2(B) and 4007-1(B), if a case is dismissed prior to the expiration of the deadline for objecting to discharge and dischargeability and then subsequently reinstated, the new deadline for filing objections to discharge and dischargeability shall be 60 days after either the rescheduled §341 meeting…

“The Supreme Court recently ruled that the fraud provision of section 523(a)(2)(A) does not require an explicit misrepresentation, but may arise from circumstances designed by a debtor to deceive a creditor and that are connected to the resulting debt. Husky Int’l Elecs., Inc. v. Ritz, 136 S. Ct. 1581, 1590, 194 L. Ed. 2d 655,…

ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO DISMISS A CHAPTER 13 PER JUDGE KIMBALL In re: Case No. 18-25207-EPK ANNE-LAURE MARGUERITE MICHELIS, Chapter 13 , “The Court rules that a chapter 13 debtor’s right to voluntarily dismiss the case under section 1307(b) is absolute, even in the face of allegations of bad faith. The Court expressly adopts in full…

In January 2019, the bankruptcy court in In re: ERIK MARTINEZ found that the homestead exemption was lost since the Debtor rented his home for approximately 2 and a half years prior to filing bankruptcy. Despite the requirement to liberally interpret the exemption in favor of the Debtor and the fact that the Debtor was…

2018 WL 1626245, IN RE: EVAN BRIAN CROCKER et al v. NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, LLC and NAVIENT CREDIT FINANCE CORPORATION,(Bankr. S.D. Tex. Mar. 26, 2018), “The Court concludes that § 523(a)(8)(A)(ii) created a new category of nondischargeable debts specifically tailored to address a perceived need. That need did not include all loans that were in some…

2018 WL 1279252, United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit, IN RE: Tony Dian PERKINS, Debtor. Farmers plan confirmed. Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy law was to “give family farmers facing bankruptcy a fighting chance to reorganize their debts and keep their land.” [citation omitted]. Prior to Chapter 12, family farmers could proceed…

The six year delay between debtor’s chapter 7 discharge and the commencement of his dischargeability adversary proceeding regarding student loans does not require dismissal of the complaint; since there is no explicit time period for commencing an adversary regarding student loans; although the court cited to case that indicated 13 years was too long. Gimbel,…