Chat With Us
Social Media
Opinions
All court opinions may be accessed at no charge via PACER through the "Written Opinions" link on the Reports page. You must, however, have an account to access the report via CM/ECF or PACER.
Access to opinions from 1997 to present, that are PDF searchable, unrestricted & unsealed, are also available through the Government Printing Office using the Advanced Search for Government Publications. There is no login required and publications are available free of charge.
Court's Web Site Opinions Database
The court's web site provides free access of some opinions, at the discretion of the judges, for the years 1998 to present. The results shown below are automatically displayed for all years, all judges, and all keywords/topics.
A search may be performed using the Search box above, or filtering by year, judge, and/or keyword/topic. To search for more than one judge and/or keywords/topics simultaneously, hold down the Ctrl key (or Command key) and select each item.
| Keywords/Topic | Date | Title | Description | Judge | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chapter 11 | 08/12/2011 | In re Platinum Oil |
A confirmed Chapter 11 plan is binding on all parties described in 11 U.S.C. § 1141(a) who received proper notice. Sovereign immunity is abrogated thereunder as well, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 106(a)(1). Additionally, under 11 U.S.C. § 1123(a)(5), applicable nonbankruptcy laws that would interfere with a debtor's means for implementing a plan can be preempted, although this area of law is unsettled. 2011 WL 3585828 (Bankr.D.N.M. 2011 J. Jacobvitz). |
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Automatic Stay | 08/09/2011 | In re Daniel William Cook and Yolanda T. Cook |
Property not administered by trustee during case is abandoned at closing, absent an order to the contrary. Chapter 7 debtor may not assert the Chapter 7 trustee's possible actions for violation of the automatic stay on theory that trustee intended to abandon all assets (including non-scheduled property). Automatic Stay does not prohibit responses to actions filed by the debtor. 2011 WL 3501844. aff'd, 2012 WL 1356490 (10th Cir. BAP 4/19/2012). |
Judge James Starzynski | |
| Dischargeability | 08/08/2011 | Grove v. Beaver (In re John Beaver and Susan Beaver) |
Memo on motion for summary judgment on section 523(a)(2), (4) and (6) claims arising out of construction of house. (a)(4) claim denied due to no allegation that funds were advanced as required for In re Romero, 535 F.2d 618 (10th Cir. 1996) liability. (a)(6) claim denied due to question of fact regarding "wilful and malicious". (a)(2) claim denied due to question of fact regarding intent to deceive. 454 B.R. 184. |
Judge James Starzynski | |
| Recusal | 08/01/2011 | In re Bollinger |
A bankruptcy judge is not required to recuse himself when a debtor sues him for actions taken in a judicial capacity. Unless pervasive bias is shown, the alleged bias requiring recusal must be based on extra-judicial conduct. 2011 WL 3276240 (Bankr.D.N.M. 2011 J. Jacobvitz). |
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Avoidance Actions | 07/05/2011 | Montoya v. Battaglia (In re Weber) |
An individual who does not normally rent out her home, but rents to debtor when debtor's home burns down and then delays collecting rent until insurance proceeds have been received and receives payment on the eve of a bankruptcy filing, cannot sustain an "ordinary course of business or financial affairs" defense to trustee's claim of an avoidable preference under 11 U.S.C. § 547(c)(2)(A). 2011 WL 2632171 (Bankr.D.N.M. 2011 J. Jacobvitz). |
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Avoidance Actions | 07/01/2011 | Ryan v. Montoya (In re Gonzales) |
There is no presumption of insolvency when trustee pursues a fraudulent transfer action under 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(B). Insolvency may not be inferred solely from fact that debtor commenced bankruptcy case five weeks after transfer. Also contains a brief discussion of the four ways to establish the fourth element of a fraudulent transfer claim under § 548(a)(1)(B)(ii). 2011 WL 2619609 (Bankr.D.N.M. 2011 J. Jacobvitz). |
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Summary Judgment | 06/29/2011 | Billings v. Escalante |
Summary Judgment Denied when Genuine Issue of Material Fact Exists, 2011 WL 2600717 (Bankr.D.N.M. J.Jacobvitz June 29, 2011). Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment on section 523(a)(2)(A) claim denied when Defendant's deposition testimony and answers to interrogatories put at issue whether Plaintiff had actual knowledge about the falsehood in Defendant's alleged false pretenses. If Plaintiff had knowledge, Plaintiff could not demonstrate reliance, a necessary element of a claim under section 523(a)(2)(A). |
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Dismissal or Conversion | 06/10/2011 | In re Joung |
Due to bad faith acts, the Court denies debtor's motion to convert from chapter 7 to 11 under 11 U.S.C. § 706(a). However, because it is possible for debtor to submit chapter 11 plan that offers significantly more to creditors than they would receive under chapter 7, the denial is without prejudice. (Bankr.D.N.M. 2011, J. Jacobvitz) |
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Dischargeability | 05/27/2011 | Comstock v. Rodriguez (In re Rodriguez) |
Whether a debt arising from a divorce proceeding is non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) or 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15) determines whether a debt is entilted to prioirty treatment under 11 U.S.C §507(a). Relevant time for determining the nature of the debt is at the time of the divorce; plaintiff's intent to use the funds as support under her present financial circumstances is not relevant. Fact issues regarding the intent of the parties and the purpose the debt was intended to serve at the time of the divorce precluded summary judgment. 2011 WL 2119008 (Bankr.D.N.M. May 27, 2011, J. Jacobvitz). |
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Dischargeability | 05/05/2011 | Taylor v. Taylor (In re Taylor) |
Judgment for overpayment of spousal support could not support a claim under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) where plaintiff knew of defendant-debtor's alleged misrepresentation at the time he sought to recover the overpayment. Debt for overpayment of spousal support does not automatically retain its character as support for purposes of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5). Debt for overpayment of spousal support could support a non-dischargeability claim under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15). Taylor v. Taylor (In re Taylor), 455 B.R. 799 (Bankr.D.N.M. 2011, J. Jacobvitz) and Taylor v. Taylor (In re Taylor) AP No. 11-1020 J (Docket No.23), aff'd, ___ B.R. ___, 2012 WL 3839318 (10th Cir. BAP 2012). |
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz |