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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | |
| Cause, Chapter 11, Dismissal or Conversion, Principal Residence | 10/14/2022 | Michael Jacques Jacobs |
“Cause” existed under § 1112(b) to dismiss or convert individual debtor’s chapter 11 case because debtor’s plan, filed more than two and a half years after debtor commenced the bankruptcy case, did not comply with the Code’s requirements for treatment of a claim secured only by debtor’s principal residence. To determine whether a plan violates the anti-modification prohibition in § 1123(b)(5) applicable to claims secured only by a debtor’s principal residence, the Court must look to the impairment provisions in § 1124. To “unimpair” a claim under § 1124(2), a debtor must cure all pre- and post-petition, pre-confirmation arrearages by the plan effective date. Consequently, a chapter 11 individual debtor may not cure arrearages on a claim secured only by the debtor’s principal residence by making installment payments over time. Such treatment impermissibly modifies the secured creditor’s claim in violation of § 1123(b)(5). Debtor’s plan did not provide for a cure of all arrearages by the plan effective date in violation of § 1123(b)(5)’s anti-modification prohibition, and Debtor did not rebut the showing of “cause” by demonstrating unusual circumstances or a likelihood that he would be able to confirm a plan within a reasonable time. The Court determined that dismissal was in the best interest of creditors and the estate and dismissed the case.
|
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz |