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 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ponzi Scheme Issues, Professionals, Trustee | 02/14/2014 | Wagner v. Lankford |
Summary: The Barton doctrine requires parties to obtain permission from the bankruptcy court before suing a case trustee for actions taken in the course of his or her official duties. In order to obtain such permission, the movant must make a prima facie case showing that the claim is not without foundation. Adv. No. 12-1139 (Bankr.D.N.M. February 14, 2014). |
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Abstention, Time | 02/11/2014 | New Mexico Highlands University v. Makwa Builders, LLC |
In the context of mandatory abstention under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(2), timely adjudication depends on a number of factors including the relative backlog of the state and federal calendars, the complexity of the case, the expertise of each forum, jurisdictional issues, and whether, and to what extent, remanding the case would impact the bankruptcy estate. The Court declined to consider the timeliness of the entire state court appellate system, rather than just the state trial court, in determining the relative speed with which the state and federal courts could be expected to proceed. Adv. No. 12-1305 (Bankr.D.N.M. February 11, 2014). |
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Chapter 11, Confirmation, Dismissal or Conversion | 02/07/2014 | PADDA Hotels, LLC |
Bank objected to hotel debtor's proposed 100% plan of reorganization on feasibility grounds. The Court took evidence and found that the debtor had carried its burden of proving that the plan offered a reasonable prospect of success and is workable. The Court confirmed the plan and denied the Bank's motion to dismiss. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Discharge | 02/04/2014 | Los Alamos National Bank, v. Wreyford |
Discharge denied under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2)(A) based on debtors’ formation of limited liability company after a trial was set on the creditor’s claims and funding the LLC after the creditor obtained a judgment against the debtors. Hinder, delay, or defraud under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2)(A) is a unitary standard. AP No. 12-1312 Docket No. 44. |
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Chapter 13, Dismissal, Dismissal or Conversion, Sanctions | 01/31/2014 | Javier Humberto Ontiveros |
Court dismissed chapter 13 case because the debtor refused to propose a plan with monthly payments sufficient to pay all priority claims (including a substantial domestic support obligation claim). Court declined to dismiss the case with prejudice, finding that the case had not been filed or prosecuted in bad faith. Court declined to award creditor attorney fees because there was insufficient evidence to warrant an award. Finally, court ordered funds held by the chapter 13 trustee to be paid to debtor's counsel, rather than DSO creditor, per sec. 1326(a). |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Fraudulent Transfers | 01/23/2014 | Wagner v. Eberhard, et al |
In a suit filed by the trustee to recover fraudulent transfers under § 548 and New Mexico’s version of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, the Court held that transfers made to defendant’s IRA constitute transfers to the individual defendant, reasoning that a self-directed IRA is not a separate legal entity from its owner and functions similar to a self-settled revocable trust. Alternatively, the Court reasoned that transfers to an IRA are recoverable from the individual defendant as the person for whose benefit the transfers were made. AP No. 11-1226 J (Docket No. 53). |
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Fraudulent Transfers, Ponzi Scheme Issues | 01/23/2014 | Wagner v. Eberhard |
In a case involving a Ponzi scheme, the Court found that: (1) the good faith defense does not protect against the recovery of net winnings; (2) for fraudulent transfer purposes, payments to an individual’s self-directed IRA constitute payments to that individual; and (3) the Trustee appropriately applied the “netting rule” to calculate the amounts invested and received. Adversary No. 11-1226 (Bankr.D.N.M. Jan. 23, 2014). |
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Fraudulent Transfers, Ponzi Scheme Issues | 01/22/2014 | Wagner v. Fenton et al |
In a case involving a Ponzi scheme, the perpetrator does not receive reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the payment of referral fees. Adversary No. 12-1116 (Bankr.D.N.M. Jan. 22, 2014). |
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz | |
| Abstention, Chapter 11, Confirmation, Judicial Estoppel, Jurisdiction | 01/16/2014 | Tres Hermanos Dairy, LLC. |
In a chapter 11 case, a creditor asked the Court to determine whether the confirmation order modified its treatment under the confirmed plan. The debtor objected to the requested relief, argued that the court lacked jurisdiction, and argued that the court should abstain. The court overruled the debtor's jurisdiction argument, ruled that neither mandatory nor permissive abstention was required, and ruled that the confirmation order did modify creditor's plan treatment. |
Judge David T. Thuma | |
| Summary Judgment | 01/15/2014 | United Tort Claimants, as individuals v. Quorum Health Resources, LLC |
Application of Rule 26 incorporated into parties’ negotiated case management order and requirement to disclose fact witnesses. Court allowed Plaintiffs to add new witnesses and to take the deposition of certain high level executives, but required Plaintiffs to supplement their disclosures. Plaintiffs could not rely on Rule 30(b)(6), which allows a party to name a corporation as deponent, to designate a fact witness for trial without naming a particular individual. 2014 WL 184984 (Bankr. D.N.M. Jan. 22, 2014); Case No.11-11-13686 JL; Misc. No. 13-0007. |
Chief Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz |