Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 19, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

In re: Jeffrey Michael Speicher

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Colorado

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 19-13850

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (1)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (34.6K)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

The Honorable Michael E. Romero

In re:

Case No. 19-13850 MER

Jeffrey Michael Speicher,

Chapter 7

Debtor.

        ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ESTIMATE CLAIM                       

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Motion for Estimation of   

Unliquidated Claim Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502 (c)(1), or in the Alternative, Order
Directing Trustee to Disburse Funds to Unsecured Creditors (“Motion to Estimate”)
filed by creditors Roddess Ekberg, Sarah Firestein, Justin Fierstein and Timothy Ekberg
(collectively the “Ekbergs”), the response filed by Debtor Jeffrey Speicher, and the
Ekbergs’ reply.1

BACKGROUND

Several years prior to the petition date, the Ekbergs sued the Debtor in state
court, alleging multiple claims. After a trial, the jury entered a verdict against the Debtor
on three claims: (i) deceit based on fraud; (ii) civil theft; and (iii) conspiracy to commit
civil theft. Shortly thereafter, the Debtor filed for bankruptcy on May 7, 2019. The
Ekbergs obtained relief from the automatic stay to allow the state court to enter a final
judgment against the Debtor, which occurred on September 22, 2019 (the “First
Judgment”). Debtor appealed the First Judgment’s verdict on the civil theft and
conspiracy claims, but not the fraud claim.

Meanwhile, the Ekbergs initiated an adversary proceeding against the Debtor,
arguing the judgment debt he owes them is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523.2 The parties agreed to hold the adversary proceeding in abeyance while the appeal was
completed.

On September 2, 2021, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion
affirming in part and reversing in part.3 The Court of Appeals concluded the state court
applied the wrong statute of limitations to the civil theft and conspiracy claims and
remanded for a new trial on those claims. In all other aspects, the Court of Appeals

1 ECF No. 417, 420, 422, 428.

2 Adv. Pr. No. 19-1202

3 Ekberg v. Speicher, 2021 WL 12344331 (Colo. Ct. App. Sep. 2, 2021).

affirmed the First Judgement. Following remand, the state court conducted a second
trial on the civil theft and conspiracy claims. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury again
returned a verdict in favor of the Ekbergs, and the state court entered judgment against
the Debtor (the “Second Judgment”). The Debtor then appealed the Second

Judgment.

In the meantime, this Court granted the Ekbergs’ request in the adversary
proceeding to lift the abeyance for the limited purpose of filing a motion for partial
summary judgment. The Court ultimately granted partial summary judgment in their
favor, entering a nondischargeable judgment against the Debtor for the fraud portion of
the Second Judgment in the amount of $326,963 plus interest. The Court determined
the fraud judgment was final because the Debtor never appealed that portion of the
state court’s ruling. The nondischargeability of any debt for the Ekbergs’ theft and
conspiracy claims remains pending and in abeyance.

On October 24, 2024, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued an opinion reversing
the Second Judgment.4 The Court of Appeals concluded the state court gave an
improper jury instruction on the conspiracy claim and, once again, remanded for a new
trial.

The Ekbergs, not wanting to await the outcome of a third trial, filed a Motion for
Order Directing Trustee to Disburse Funds to Unsecured Creditors, asking the Court to
require the Chapter 7 Trustee to make an interim distribution to creditors, even though
the full amount of their claim against the Debtor has not been liquidated.5 The Ekbergs
suggested the Trustee could make a pro rata distribution on the nondischargeable fraud
judgment entered by this Court and use the remainder of the estate funds to pay other
unsecured creditors in full. The Court denied this request without prejudice, in part
because it would alter the pro rata distribution to favor payment of dischargeable claims
over nondischargeable claims.6 It would also have violated the terms of a court-
approved settlement agreement between the Debtor and the Trustee, under which the
Trustee agreed to hold off on submitting a final report until the state court action is
complete, to allow for an accurate pro rata distribution.7

The Ekbergs have now filed their Motion to Estimate. They argue that it will take
too long for the state court proceeding to conclude and that this Court should estimate
the amount of their claim so the Trustee can make the final pro rata distribution based
on that estimate. The Debtor objects, arguing that estimation is not required. Shortly

4 Ekberg v. Speicher, 2024 WL 4578665 (Colo. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2024).

5 ECF No. 408.

6 ECF No. 415.

7 ECF Nos. 339, 343.

after the Ekbergs filed their Motion to Estimate, the state court set a 5-day trial on the
Ekbergs’ civil theft and conspiracy claims to begin on May 18, 2026.

DISCUSSION

In the Motion, the Ekbergs ask the Court to estimate their claim for distribution
purposes under 11 U.S.C. § 502 (c). In relevant part, that section provides:

(c) There shall be estimated for the purpose of allowance under this section-
-

(1) any contingent or unliquidated claim, the fixing or liquidation of
which, as the case may be, would unduly delay the administration of the
case[.]

Under this section, estimation is only required if the court determines that liquidation
outside of bankruptcy would “unduly delay” administration of the bankruptcy case.

While “undue” is not defined, it generally means “unjustifiable.”8 When applying
§ 502(c), it is important to remember that “estimation does not become mandatory
merely because liquidation may take longer and thereby delay administration of the
case . . . [because] [l]iquidation of a claim, in fact, will almost always be more time
consuming than estimation.”9 Rather, in considering whether a delay is “undue,” courts
consider “all the circumstances in the case and, in particular, how long the liquidation
process would take compared with the uncertainty due to the contingency in question.”10

Courts will also perform a cost-benefit analysis, considering the time, costs, and
benefits associated with both estimation and liquidation.11

In this case, the most important consideration is that the state court has set a trial
date that will allow liquidation of the claim in a relatively short period. The Court
recognizes that the state court proceedings have been protracted due to the appeals
and retrials. However, the state court can liquidate the claim on a final basis more
quickly than this Court could estimate it. The Ekbergs argue that this Court has
discretion to determine the method for estimating their claim and suggest a truncated
process involving a review of the transcripts from the prior state court trials. That
method seems highly problematic, given that the outcomes of both trials were
overturned on appeal. It is more likely that an estimate would necessitate an
evidentiary hearing before this Court and all the procedures it entails.

8 Estate of Donovan v. Anderson (In re Anderson), 670 B.R. 528, 562 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2025).
9 Id. at 561 (quoting In re Dow Corning Corp., 211 B.R. 545, 563 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1997)).
10 Id. 11 Id. On this topic, the Court finds the case of In re Anderson to be persuasive.12 In
Anderson, the bankruptcy court denied a motion to estimate, opting to allow liquidation
in a pending state court case, even though the state court proceedings might take
longer. The court reasoned:

[T]he cost of estimating [the creditor’s] claim far outweighs what little time
estimation might save. Though liquidation might take longer, it would
provide certainty and thus enable the parties to reliably act. Estimation, by
contrast would (1) take a significant amount of time and (2) lack any
meaningful degree of accuracy, due to the uncertain and contingent nature
of [the creditor’s] claims. Given that it will be far less costly and likely take
just slightly longer, waiting for the State Court to liquidate [the creditor’s]
claims will not “unduly delay” the administration of [debtor’s] Chapter 13
case.13

The court in Anderson noted the uncertainties in estimating the creditor’s claim, given a
pending state-court appeal and how that might affect further state-court proceedings.

These uncertainties, the court held, would make it “quite challenging” to estimate the
claims reliably. The court concluded, “[b]ecause estimation would create little to no
benefit in terms of speedier case administration, and require significant resources, time,
and duplicative efforts, the delay associated with liquidation is far from unjustifiable,
unwarranted, or excessive, and therefore not undue.”14

Here, the state court is clearly well-versed in the lawsuit and has extensive
institutional knowledge of the parties and their dispute.15 Indeed, the state court has
already entered judgment on the fraud claim—which involves the same underlying facts
as the remaining theft and conspiracy claims. Following completion of the second
appeal, it remains unclear how a jury, given proper jury instructions, will determine the
Ekbergs’ theft and conspiracy claims at the new trial. As in Anderson, these
uncertainties would make estimation “quite challenging.” Even if liquidation in state
court is potentially slower, it will produce a more certain result.16 It would be inefficient
for this Court to duplicate the state court's efforts, especially given that the trial is set to

12 670 B.R. 528, 562 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2025).

13 Id. 14 Id. at 564.

15 This is true whether or not a particular state court judge retired or was rotated off the case, which
frequently occurs in state court.

16 Id. (“And estimation necessarily produces an uncertain result. Liquidation, while (potentially) slower,
produces a certain result.”).

begin in a few short weeks.'” Based on all these circumstances, the Court concludes
any delay associated with liquidation in state court is not unjustifiable and therefore not
undue.
The Ekbergs’ Motion to Estimate also requests, in the alternative, that the Court
order an interim distribution based on their partially liquidated fraud claim. That request
is denied for the same reasons the Court denied their earlier request for the same relief.
Such a distribution would unfairly alter the pro rata distribution, favoring payment of
dischargeable claims over nondischargeable claims. The “credit” suggested by the
Ekbergs would not solve this issue. An interim distribution would also violate the terms
of a court-approved settlement agreement between the Debtor and the Trustee.
CONCLUSION
For all these reasons, the Ekbergs’ Motion to Estimate is DENIED.
Dated: March 19, 2026 BY THE COURT:

                                                <— 
                                                < 
                                   Michael E. Romero, 
                                   United States      ruptcy Court 

17 While it is possible that a third appeal could follow whatever judgment is entered by the state court,
such outcome is speculative at this juncture. Furthermore, the risk of appeal is not absent in the claim
estimation process. See In re Anderson, 670 B.R. at 563 (noting dissatisfaction with a claim estimation
could result in an appeal and/or disputes over the interlocutory nature of an estimation order).