Butz et al v. Campbell et al
| Clarence Campbell and Donna Campbell |
| Thomas C. Butz and Shawn C. Butz |
| 1:2018cv00054 |
| May 7, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Kentucky |
| Bowling Green Office |
| Warren |
| Greg N. Stivers |
| Appeal |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1334 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
20
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Chief Judge Greg N. Stivers on 5/2/2019. The Bankruptcy Court's decision is AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART. The Bankruptcy Court's conclusions regarding dischargeability are affirmed. The Bankrupt cy Court's conclusions regarding pre- and post-judgment interest are reversed. The Court accordingly awards as follows: 1. Appellees/Cross- Appellants are entitled to $328,589 under the terms of the loan agreement through September 2012 . 2. Appellees/Cross-Appellants are entitled prejudgment interest at the per annum simple rate of 15% for the dates between September 1, 2012, and January 5, 2018; amounting to $263,591.40, bringing the total prejudgment assessment to & #036;592,180.40. 3. Appellees/Cross-Appellants are entitled to post-judgment interest at the compounding rate of 1.76% as provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1961. cc: Counsel; U.S. Bankruptcy Court Clerk (Case No. 15-10340; A.P. No. 16-1013); Trustee Jerry Burns (CDF) Modified distribution on 5/3/2019 (CDF).
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Kentucky Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
