2023 Judge Gambardella - Opinions
Judge Rosemary Gambardella -- Opinions signed in 2023
The issue before the Court is whether Plaintiff-Debtor, Douglas J. Heidt, may avoid the transfer of his Property to Defendants, BV001 Blocker, et.al., in a tax foreclosure sale as a constructively fraudulent transfer under 11 U.S.C. § 548 and 11 U.S.C. § 522 (g), (h), and (i). Plaintiff-Debtor filed a Motion for Summary Judgment Seeking to Avoid the Transfer of the Property and argued that he was entitled to summary judgment on the basis that he became insolvent as a result of the transfer of the Property and that this Court may avoid a New Jersey tax sale judgment under the provisions of § 548 of the Bankruptcy Code. (ECF 45). The Court granted the Plaintiff-Debtor’s Motion for Summary Judgement under 11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(1)(B) and held that the Property shall be recovered by the Debtor from the Defendants, the initial transferees, for the benefit of the estate, which will increase the probability of a successful reorganization under a chapter 13 Plan. The tax lien of the Defendants against the Property will remain in place until the debt secured by the lien is repaid through the chapter 13 Plan.
Adv. Pro. No. 18-1154, Halaw v. Wilding - Opinion on Motion for Publication on June 29, 2023
By Order of the District Court, this matter was remanded with instructions to the Bankruptcy Court: 1) to apply the factors set forth in Poulis v. State Farm Fire Cas. Co., 747 F. 2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984) to the Appellants-Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37; and 2) as to the Appellee-Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the Adversary Complaint, for consideration of the doctrines of waiver and laches consistent with the law and facts set forth in the matter.
On remand, this Court finds that under the circumstances present, the harsh sanction of striking the Debtor’s answer and affirmative defenses, including the Debtor’s assertion that the Complaint is time-barred or entering default judgment against the Debtor or the other sanctions set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A) are disproportionate. Additionally, the Plaintiffs’ defenses of waiver and laches have not been sustained. As a result, for the reasons set forth above, the Adversary Proceeding will be dismissed with prejudice as time barred.
Adversary Proceeding Case No. 16-01576 Perkins v. North Park Realty Management, LLC 3/16/2023
Calculation of damages including attorneys’ fees and prejudgment interest.
Return to list of Court Hosted Opinions