In Re Kraft LLC
Decision Date | 22 April 2010 |
Docket Number | Bankruptcy No. 07-21367 JPK.,Adversary No. 08-02038. |
Citation | 429 B.R. 637 |
Parties | In re KRAFT, LLC, a Limited Liability Company, Debtor.Kraft, LLC, a Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff,v.Charles R. Greiner, Dennis Churilla, Jeffrey D. Greiner, Louis Gerodemos, Mary Louise Sarey, Robert Heikema, Terry R. Schrefler, Brenda L. Van Zuidam, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Indiana |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Lori D. Fisher, Esq., Merrillville, IN, for the Plaintiff, Kraft, LLC.
Kenneth A. Manning, Esq., Dyer, IN, for the Defendants.
This contested matter/adversary proceeding arises from a complaint filed on April 11, 2008, by Kraft, LLC, against Charles R. Greiner, Dennis Churilla, Jeffrey D. Greiner, Louis Gerodemos, Mary Louise Sarey, Robert Heikema, Terry R. Schrefler and Brenda L. Van Zuidam (the “Investors”). On September 7, 1999, Kraft Funeral Services and Crematory, Inc. (“Kraft Funeral”) entered into promissory notes with the eight individual Investors, each in the amount of $50,000 (the “Notes”). In order to secure the foregoing Notes, on April 7, 2000, Kraft, LLC executed and gave a mortgage to the Investors on real estate commonly known as 370 N. County Line Road, Hobart, Indiana (the “Property”). Kraft, LLC contends that the mortgage executed on April 7, 2000 is not valid on several theories, including that the mortgage does not adequately describe the secured debt pursuant to I.C. § 32-21-4-1 and therefore should be avoided pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 544(a)(3).
On December 12, 2008, the court held a pretrial conference at which it was determined that the case should be decided on a stipulated record, which was memorialized by an order entered on January 8, 2009. Following several extensions of time to file the stipulated record, on April 21, 2009, the United States Trustee filed a motion to dismiss, which was eventually resolved. While the motion to dismiss was pending, the parties requested that the deadlines in this case be stayed until after the motion was resolved, a request which the court granted. On June 3, 2009, the court entered an order making the stipulation due on June 8, 2009, the initial briefs due on June 22, 2009, and any replies due on July 22, 2009. The parties adhered to the deadlines, although only the Investors filed a reply brief.
The record is closed. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a) and (b), 28 U.S.C. § 157(a) and (b), and N.D.Ind.L.R. 200.1(a). The case is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(K).
I. THE FACTUAL RECORD/ ISSUES PRESENTED
Pursuant to an order of the court entered on January 8, 2009, this case is submitted by means of a stipulated record. On June 8, 2009, the Plaintiff Debtor and the Defendant Investors jointly filed with the court a document entitled Stipulation of Facts/Exhibits (the “Stipulation”), in which the parties set out not only the legal issues in this case, but also the facts and evidence the court is to consider in rendering a final decision. The Stipulation provides as follows: 1
For purposes of convenience and concise record, exhibits 1, 5 and 6 are samples, examples of identical documents for each of the 8 Investors. The dates, amounts and signatures are identical duplicate; only the subscriber name, payee and social security number would be different, appropriately designating the proper Investor. Exhibit 11 is the identical real estate mortgage for each Investor.
STIPULATION OF FACTS
1. Kraft Funeral Services and Crematory Inc. (hereinafter Kraft Funeral) is an Indiana corporation for profit which was incorporated on November 18, 1998. It has elected sub-s status for reporting its income and filing tax returns.
2. In late part of 1998, Dennis Churilla and Charles R. Greiner approached Jackie Kraft about investing in the construction of the new funeral home and crematory. Dennis Churilla and Charles R. Greiner solicited and obtained all of the Investors.
The following documents, papers and exhibits are stipulated as true, accurate and complete documents and records for purposes of authenticity and admissibility:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kepler v. Eichline (In re Eichline)
...to recover the property transferred or its value, a court must evaluate the two bases of relief separately. See In re Kraft, LLC, 429 B.R. 637, 666-67 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 2010). To prevail in a recovery action under § 550, there must be an initial, immediate, or mediate transferee from whom t......
-
Manchester v. Sharpton (In re All Phase Roofing & Const.), Case No. 17-12414-SAH
...Section 550 is a separate action that is conceptually different and requires its own analysis. Kraft, LLC v. Greiner (In re Kraft, LLC), 429 B.R. 637, 666-67 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 2010). "[T]he fact that avoidance is a necessary precondition to § 550 recovery does not imply that avoidance is a ......
-
IN The MATTER of TRENT R. JONES v. MISER
...therefore did not have constructive notice of a recorded lien held by the defendant, as Indiana requires. See In re Kraft, LLC, 429 B.R. 637, 647-48 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 2010) (citing C. Callahan Co. v. Lafayette Consumers Co., 2 N.E.2d 994, 1000 (Ind. App. 1936); In re Canaday, 376 B.R. 260, ......
-
Centier Bank v. 1st Source Bank
...a case from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Indiana. Similarly, 1st Source relies on In re Kraft, LLC, 429 B.R. 637 (Bankr.N.D.Ind.2010). Although we find these cases informative for their discussion of Indiana law, they are, of course, not binding authority.......