US Bankruptcy Court WDAR Docket Feed

Whittle Chapter 7 Estate v. Mahindra Finance USA LLC - Partial Summary Judgment

In a Chapter 7 bankruptcy adversary proceeding (Case No. 5:24-ap-07055), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Arkansas granted the Chapter 7 trustee's motion for partial summary judgment against Mahindra Finance USA LLC on October 15, 2025. The court found that Mahindra failed to properly perfect its security interests in two 2022 Mahindra Roxor all-terrain vehicles (VINs A5ZAAAAAKNA009472 and A5ZAAAAAVNA009959, valued at $24,000 and $20,000 respectively), and ordered avoidance of the liens, turnover of both vehicles, and turnover of any 90-day pre-petition payments and post-petition payments to Mahindra. The court simultaneously granted in part and denied in part Mahindra's competing motion for summary judgment.

Hicks v. City of Fort Smith — Lien Avoidance Denied, Statutory Lien Classification

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Arkansas denied the motion of debtors Sherman Wilson Hicks Jr. and Dianna Lynn Hicks to avoid a $1,914.01 lien filed by the City of Fort Smith for costs incurred in abating a dead tree code violation. The Court held that the City's lien arose under Arkansas Code Annotated section 14-54-903 and the Fort Smith Municipal Code — a statutory lien, not a judicial lien obtained through court process — and therefore is not subject to avoidance under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f). The debtors bear the burden of proving entitlement to lien avoidance by a preponderance of the evidence.

Citizens Bank Wins Judgment on Partial Findings on ADTPA Claims

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Arkansas granted Citizens Bank & Trust Co. judgment on partial findings on March 30, 2026, dismissing all three counts of the debtors' Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act claims. Trial was held February 25, 2026. The debtors initially alleged ADTPA violations in Counts I through III, fraud in Count IV, and negligence in Count V, but voluntarily dismissed the latter two counts at trial. The court found it had jurisdiction as a non-core proceeding related to the bankruptcy case, with both parties having consented to the bankruptcy court's entry of final judgment.