CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
In re: TONY DIAN PERKINS,
Debtor.
   Nos. 17-8001/8008
On Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the Western District of Kentucky at Bowling Green.
No. 16-10383—Joan A. Lloyd, Judge.
Argued: November 14, 2017
Decided and Filed: March 13, 2018
Before: DELK, HARRISON, and HUMPHREY, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

GUY R. HUMPHREY, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judge. In these consolidated appeals, SummitBridge National Investments V LLC (“SummitBridge”) appeals the Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Kentucky’s Memorandum-Opinion overruling Branch Banking & Trust Co.’s (“BB&T”) objection to the confirmation of Tony Dian Perkins’ (“Perkins”) Chapter 12 plan, and the subsequent order confirming that plan.

Chapter 12 relief is only available to family farmers or family fisherman. 11 U.S.C. § 109(f). A family farmer is an “individual . . . engaged in a farming operation whose aggregate debts do not exceed $4,153,150,” and who receives more than half of her gross income from “such farming operation.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(18)(A). SummitBridge contends that the bankruptcy court improperly found Perkins to be a family farmer, arguing that Perkins both exceeded the “aggregate debt” limit and did not receive more than half of her income from her farming operation. In the alternative, SummitBridge argues that even if Perkins qualified for Chapter 12 relief, Perkins’ plan should not have been confirmed because it was not feasible, provided improper treatment to BB&T’s secured claim, and failed to meet the best interests of creditors test. We reject SummitBridge’s arguments and affirm the bankruptcy court.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
In re: NICOLE GAS PRODUCTION, LTD.,
Debtor.
_________________________________________

JAMES A. LOWE (15-8053); CURTLAND H. CAFFEY, S. BREWSTER RANDALL II, and ROBERT C. SANDERS (15-8055),
Appellants,
v.
FREDERICK L. RANSIER, Trustee,
Appellee.
   Nos. 15-8053/8055
On Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.
No. 09-52887—John E. Hoffman, Judge.
Argued: May 9, 2017
Decided and Filed: March 13, 2018
Before: DELK, HARRISON, and OPPERMAN, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

DANIEL S. OPPERMAN, Chief Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judge. The Bankruptcy Court in the underlying case held Appellants in contempt for conduct that it found constituted an impermissible exercise of control over property of the bankruptcy estate. A Fee Order followed the Contempt Order and awarded Appellee fees and expenses of $91,068.00 as a sanction for Appellants’ conduct. Appellants appealed the Contempt Order and the opinion regarding same and the Fee Order and opinion regarding same. For the reasons stated below, the Panel AFFIRMS those orders and opinions.