IN RE: JOHN PRESTON THOMPSON, TEENA COLEBROOK v. JOHN PRESTON THOMPSON - Articles

All Content

IN RE: JOHN PRESTON THOMPSON, TEENA COLEBROOK v. JOHN PRESTON THOMPSON

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Apr 17, 2025

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ON BRIEF: Griffin S. Dunham, DUNHAM HILDERBRAND PAYNE WALDRON, PLLC, Brentwood, Tennessee, for Appellee.

Attorneys 2: ON BRIEF: C, Brentwood, Tennessee, for Appellee.

Judge(s): BAUKNIGHT, CROOM, and GREGG, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judges

Court Appealed: United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville

JIMMY L. CROOM, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judge. At issue in this appeal is whether the bankruptcy court erred in dismissing the appellant’s adversary complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim against the debtor. The bankruptcy court was tasked with sua sponte reviewing the sufficiency of the appellant’s complaint by virtue of her application to proceed in forma pauperis. After analyzing the appellant’s adversary complaint, the bankruptcy court concluded that it did not adequately state a claim for relief against the debtor because her claims were time-barred under the relevant statutes of limitations. As such, the court dismissed her complaint under the mandate of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). For reasons that will be set forth herein, the appellant is not entitled to relief in this appeal. The bankruptcy court did not err in sua sponte dismissing her adversary complaint. Her claims were time-barred by various statutes of limitations and, as such, dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 was mandated. The errors appellant alleges the bankruptcy court made in this matter stem from a misunderstanding of the law and of legal procedure—not an error by the bankruptcy court.

Attachments: