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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adversary, Dischargeability, Nondischargeability | 09/12/2014 | Charles B. Duff et al v. Richard A. Ayala et al |
Plaintiffs sought to have debt declared nondischargeable under 523(a)(6). The court held that based on the evidence presented at trial, Plaintiffs failed to prove that Debtor's conduct was willful and malicious and therefore the debt was entitled to discharge. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Adversary, Cause, Chapter 11, Dismissal or Conversion | 09/09/2014 | Sunnyland Farms, Inc. |
Creditors filed a motion to convert Debtor's Chapter 11 case to a case under Chapter 7. The Court denied Creditors' motion for failure to establish that cause for conversion existed under 11 U.S.C. 1112(b). |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Adversary Proceedings - Procedural Matters, Dismissal, Limitation of Actions, Nondischargeability | 08/29/2014 | Alejandra Barrazo v. Loowinda G. Carter |
Creditor filed an objection to dischargeability by motion rather than complaint. Debtor moved to dismiss the action because it was not properly brought, because the filing fee was paid late, and because the summons was not served on debtor's counsel. The court reviewed and facts and the case law and determined that the motion should be denied, but that creditor should be required to file an amended complaint. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Contract Interpretation, Proof of Claim | 08/20/2014 | Picacho Hills Utility Company, Inc. |
Debtor objected to creditor's proof of claim, arguing that its obligation to creditor was not enforceable due to prior ruling of the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission. After examining the parties’ agreement and the Commission’s ruling, the Court overruled Debtor’s objection.proofpro |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Adversary Proceedings - Procedural Matters, Agency Liability, Summary Judgment | 08/06/2014 | Carmen A. Clark v. Envoy Mortgage, Ltd.et al |
"Debtor asserted claims against loan broker/lender for breach of contract, negligence, and violation of the Unfair Trade Practices Act, all based on defendant's failure to close a reverse mortgage loan. Defendant moved for summary judgment on all counts, alleging no material facts in dispute. The court ruled that numerous disputed facts prevented entry of summary judgment. The court also ruled, however, that plaintiff should amend her complaint to cure a number of pleading deficiencies." |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Collateral Estoppel, Dischargeability, Nondischargeability, Summary Judgment | 07/30/2014 | Jeff Baldwin v. Tamara L. Phillips |
Creditor sought a determination that debtor's obligations to him were nondischargeable under Sec. 523(a)(5) or (a)(15). The court granted summary judgment on the nondischargeability issue, based on the undisputed fact that the judgments were entered by the state court in connection with the divorce proceeding between creditor and debtor. The court reserved judgment in two discrete areas on the amount of the claim. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Collateral Estoppel, Confirmation, Res Judicata, Summary Judgment | 07/21/2014 | Angela R. Parra |
Debtor's ex-husband objected to debtor's chapter 13 plan, arguing inter alia that his claim is a priority claim (domestic support obligation) in an amount sufficient to require denial of plan confirmation. Debtor argued that the claim was a general unsecured claim. Ex-husband filed a motion for summary judgment on the priority issue, attaching a ruling from the state court on the issue. Debtor did not respond. The court held that the state court judgment did not satisfy the requirements of issue or claim preclusion, so the summary judgment motion could not be granted. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Miscellaneous | 07/08/2014 | Roman Catholic Church of the Diocese fo Gallup, Jointly Administered with Bishop of the Roman Catholic Church of the Diocese of Gallup |
Debtor sought Rule 2004 exam of third party's financial statements and insurance coverage, as well as similar information for alleged affiliates. The court allowed the debtor to obtain insurance information from the third party, and to obtain certain financial information.that appeared to be publicly available. The court denied the other requested relief. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Automatic Stay, Damages, Relief from Stay, Stay Violation | 07/03/2014 | Juan Escobedo v. Yolanda Davis et al |
Debtor sought damages for intentional stay violation, while creditor sought relief from the stay. After trial the court held that the creditor willfully violated the automatic stay, and awarded debtor actual and punitive damages. The court then modified the automatic stay to allow the creditor to pursue her rights in state court. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Dischargeability, Dismissal, Due Process, Service, Summary Judgment | 07/03/2014 | Julie Brown v. Kathleen Blair Humphrey |
Defendant filed motion to dismiss nondischargeability action because it was filed after the deadline. Plaintiff responded that she was not given notice of the bankruptcy case until after the deadline. The court ruled that it would treat the motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment because the response relied upon documents outside of the pleadings. The court gave the defendant additional time to support its position on summary judgment. The court also put the parties on notice that it would consider granting summary judgment on the issue to plaintiff, pursuant to Rule 56(f). |
Judge David T. Thuma |