Tag: related to

Bankr. E.D.N.C.: Ohnmacht v. Commercial Credit Group, Inc. – Subject Matter Jurisdiction to Determine Non-Bankruptcy Causes of Action Related to Discharge Violation

Summary:

The Ohnmachts, having completed their Chapter 11 plan and received a discharge, sent a demand letter to Commercial Credit Group demanding that the judgment against them be cancelled. When CCG declined, they re-opened their bankruptcy and brought an adversary proceeding asserting breach of contract, violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-239 and § 75-1.1 et seq, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligence and seeking relief under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act (“FDJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a). They also included in a Motion for Contempt and Sanctions for alleged violation of provisions the preference judgment, the plan, confirmation order, and the discharge injunction.… Read More

Tagged with: , , , , ,

Bankr. E.D.N.C.: Kozek v. Murphy- Bankruptcy Court Authority to Determine Personal Injury Tort Claim

Summary:

Following the filing of Ms. Murphy’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy, her ex-husband, Mr. Kozek, brought an adversary proceeding against her for malicious prosecution, seeking both monetary damages and a determination that any such award was nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). After a bench trial, to which both parties explicitly consented, the bankruptcy court found Ms. Murphy liable to Mr. Kozek in the amount of $8,274.94, which was nondischargeable. While the written judgment was pending, Ms. Murphy brought a Motion to Dismiss, alleging that the bankruptcy court lacked subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5) to decide the malicious prosecution claim, as a personal injury tort.… Read More

Tagged with: , , , ,

Bankr. E.D.N.C.: C.R. Peele Construction v. DTC Engineers- Post-Confirmation “Related To” Jurisdiction

Summary:

Debtor brought an Adversary Proceeding against Defendants alleging unpaid invoices a little more than two months after its Chapter 11 plan was confirmed. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(b) and 157(a) a matter “is within the jurisdiction of [a Bankruptcy] Court if it is ‘arising under,’ ‘arising in,’ or ‘related to’ the corresponding bankruptcy case.” Citing to In re Celotex Corp., 124 F.3d 619, 625 (4thCir. 1997) (quoting Pacor, Inc. v. Higgins, 743 F.2d 984, 994 (3rdCir. 1984)), the bankruptcy court held that “[t]he usual articulation of the test for determining whether a civil proceeding is related to bankruptcy is whether the outcome of that proceeding could conceivably have any effect on the estate being administered in bankruptcy.” Both confirmation and then later substantial consummation of the debtor’s plan, however, narrows the ‘related to’ jurisdiction such that an action “must affect an integral aspect of the bankruptcy process—there must be a close nexus to the bankruptcy plan or proceeding.” Valley Historic Ltd.  … Read More

Tagged with: ,
Top