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 Opinions Database

The court's 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, Relief from Judgment     01/06/2023     Michael Jacques Jacobs     

Debtor sought relief under Rule 59(e) from the Court’s order dismissing debtor’s chapter 11 case. The Court dismissed debtor’s case for “cause” under § 1111(b), concluding that debtor’s plan impermissibly modified the secured creditor’s claim, which was secured solely by debtor’s principle residence, in violation of § 1123(b)(5)’s anti-modification prohibition. Although some case law supports debtor’s position, the Court already considered those cases in ruling on the motion to dismiss or convert, and determined as a matter of law that debtor was required to pay all pre-confirmation arrears in full by the plan effective date in order to satisfy the anti-modification prohibition of § 1123(b)(5). Debtor’s alleged errors in the court’s findings of fact would not have changed the result; debtor’s arguments regarding “indubitable equivalent” are not relevant to whether debtor’s plan was facially unconfirmable under § 1123(b)(5); and debtor’s remaining arguments did not meet the standard for Rule 59(e) relief.

 

Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz
Avoidance Actions, Reconsideration     01/06/2023     Philip Montoya, Chapter 7 Trustee v. William S. Ferguson et al     

Defendants moved for reconsideration of an adverse judgment. The court analyzed the arguments in the motion for reconsideration and found that the motion simply reargued matters previously argued at trial and determined by the Court. The Court denied the motion for that reason and on the merits.recon

 

Judge David T. Thuma
Appeals, Professionals, Standing, Trustee     12/23/2022     Philip Montoya, Chapter 7 Trustee v. William S. Ferguson et al     

Ruling on defendants’ request to set a bond and stay enforcement of an adverse judgment pending reconsideration and/or appeal, the court analyzed what bond amount would fully protect plaintiff without causing irreparable injury to defendants. After detailed analysis, the court set the bond at $810,000.

 

Judge David T. Thuma
Exemptions     12/16/2022     Bianca Ann Medina     

The issue before the Court was whether the New Mexico exemptions, apart from the $500 wildcard exemption, allow a debtor to exempt all or any part of the federal Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), or its New Mexico counterpart, the New Mexico Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC). The Trustee objected to Debtor’s claim of exemption in her EITC and WFTC except for the wildcard exemption. The Court found that the EITC and WFTC are a form of public assistance for low income wage earners that is not dependent on whether the wage earner pays or has overpaid any taxes. Unlike several other states, New Mexico does not have an exemption specific to the EITC or WFTC or an exemption applicable to public assistance benefits generally. While New Mexico does have an exemption for public assistance benefits, the exemption is limited to benefits payable or paid under the N.M. Public Assistance Act, which does not include the EITC or WFTC. The Court therefore sustained the Trustee’s objection to Debtor’s claim of exemptions.

 

Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz
Chapter 13, Confirmation, Due Process, Executory Contract, Res Judicata     12/07/2022     Nelson Gonzales     

Sellers under a real estate contract (“REC”) requested the Court to determine that they terminated the REC prepetition such that debtor could not seek to cure the arrears under the REC through his chapter 13 plan; alternatively, sellers sought relief from the automatic stay. Debtor countered that sellers were bound by the terms of his confirmed chapter 13 plan which treated the REC as a secured claim rather than as an executory contract under § 365. The Court strictly enforced the termination provisions of the REC and determined that sellers did not establish that they properly terminated the REC pre-petition because there was no evidence that they sent the final notice of default to debtor by certified mail, return receipt requested as required under the REC; however, because sellers did not receive bankruptcy notices at their new address, due process concerns prevented sellers from being bound by the terms of debtor’s confirmed chapter 13 plan. Sellers provided debtor with their new address, but debtor did not include or update the sellers’ new address on the mailing list. Because sellers were not bound by the confirmed chapter 13 plan, the court did not need to determine whether the REC is an executory contract that requires assumption or rejection under § 365 or may be treated as a security device subject to modification under § 1322. The Court denied the motion, conditioned upon debtor providing sellers with proof of insurance on the property, and gave the debtor an opportunity to modify his confirmed plan to provide for treatment of sellers’ REC, which might include alternative treatment as an executory contract or as a secured claim. 

Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz
Abstention     11/22/2022     Mitchell and Victoria Hawkes vs. Automated Recovery Systems of New Mexico, Inc., et al.     

Debtor removed state court action filed against it and two unrelated parties. The plaintiff filed a motion for the court to abstain from hearing the removed proceeding and remand it. The court ruled that the elements of mandatory abstention were not met for any of the claims, and that it was not advisable to abstain under the permissive abstention rules.

 

Judge David T. Thuma
Nondischargeability, Reconsideration, Summary Judgment     11/10/2022     United States of America v. Alejandro Saavedra     

 On an order to show cause why judgment should not be entered against defendant that he intended to defraud the federal government,  based on a civil judgment against him under the False Claims Act, the court found that the prior jury finding that defendant “knowingly” filed false claims was sufficient for a finding of intent to defraud in a section 523(a)(2)(A) proceeding.non

Judge David T. Thuma
BAPCPA, Chapter 13, Confirmation     11/08/2022     Jody Lee Beach and Rhonda B. Beach     

Creditor and chapter 13 trustee objected to confirmation of the above-median debtors’ chapter 13 plan. The trustee settled. The court confirmed the plan over the creditor’s objection, holding that, as amended to reflect the trustee’s settlement, the debtors were devoting their projected disposable income to the plan.

 

Judge David T. Thuma
Conversion, Dismissal     10/31/2022     GandyDancer, LLC     

The UST filed a motion to convert or dismiss the chapter 11 case for continuing losses, inability to confirm a plan, and failure to timely file MORs. The Court found that the tardy filing of the MORs was excusable, that the estate’s losses were not substantial or continuing, and that debtor likely was able to confirm a plan of liquidation. Motion denied.The UST filed a motion to convert or dismiss the chapter 11 case for continuing losses, inability to confirm a plan, and failure to timely file MORs. The Court found that the tardy filing of the MORs was excusable, that the estate’s losses were not substantial or continuing, and that debtor likely was able to confirm a plan of liquidation. Motion denied.

Judge David T. Thuma
Chapter 13, Dischargeability     10/21/2022     Iron Horse Welding, LLC v. Beach     

The Court tried the merits of this $16,859.98 embezzlement nondischargeability proceeding. Plaintiff asserted that Defendants used Plaintiff’s credit card without permission to pay their phone bill. Defendants argued that Plaintiff agreed to pay their phone bill, but that Plaintiff changed its story after Plaintiff’s owner and Defendants had a falling out. The Court ruled that Plaintiff did not carry its burden of proving that the charges were unauthorized and held in favor of Defendants.

 

Judge David T. Thuma

Pages