Sidney B. Brooks

How Judge Brooks rules, drawn from 20 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge Brooks no longer hears cases. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled.

Court
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado
Position
bankruptcy
Status
No longer serving
Appointed by
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Commissioned
1988-01-01
Signed orders read
20

How Judge Brooks decides

Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

What persuades

A late dispositive motion could still be considered when both sides agreed that no factual dispute remained and only a legal question required decision.

“Normally, this Court would strike the pending Motion. However, it appears to be agreed to by the parties that there are no factual issues in this matter and all that remains is an adjudication of the legal question presented herein.”

Procedural preferences

A creditor omitted from timely notice was not bound by the ordinary deadline for a nondischargeability complaint under the applicable statutory exception.

“there is no time limit set forth in the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure or Section 523(a)(3)(B).”

Cautions

A party seeking to undo a default judgment needed to establish good cause and address whether the default was willful.

“Vectra has not asserted that there is ‘good cause’ to set aside the entry of default, nor has it contended that its default was not willful.”

Signed rulings

A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.

In RE McGOUGH
· 2011-07-07
Summary judgment (Chapter 7 Trustee) Granted in part

“Plaintiff's Motion For Partial Summary Judgment is: A. GRANTED to the extent that it seeks summary judgment on the avoidance of Debtors' charitable contributions that exceed 15% of Debtors' GAI totaling $2,614.95 pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 548. It is B. DENIED to the extent that it seeks summary judgment in the avoidance of Debtors' charitable contributions that do not exceed 15% of Debtors' GAI totaling $2,143.05 pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 548.”

Summary judgment (charitable recipient) Granted in part

“Defendant's Motion For Partial Summary Judgment is: A. GRANTED to the extent that it seeks summary judgment to retain charitable contributions that do not exceed 15% of Debtors' GAI totaling $2,143.05. B. DENIED to the extent that it seeks summary judgment to retain charitable contributions that exceed 15% of Debtors' GAI totaling $2,614.95.”

Liberty Acquisitions, LLC v. Cordova (In Re Cordova)
· 2010-10-18
Summary judgment (debtor-defendant) Granted

“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED.”

In Re Waterman
· 2011-04-07
Plan confirmation (debtor (superseded plan)) Moot / procedural

“the Amended Chapter 13 Plan filed on December 28, 2010 (Docket # 34) is DENIED as MOOT.”

Motion to determine secured status (debtor) Granted

“the Motion to Determine Secured Status Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 506 filed on November 9, 2010 (Docket # 22) is GRANTED and the Residence is determined to be fully unsecured.”

Objection to plan confirmation (Chapter 13 Trustee) Denied

“the Standing Chapter 13 Trustee’s Objection to Confirmation of Debtor’s Amended Chapter 13 Plan (Docket #46) is OVERRULED.”

Plan confirmation (debtor (replacement plan)) Granted

“the Amended Chapter 13 Plan filed on January 31, 2011 (Docket # 48) is GRANTED.”

Musich v. Graham (In Re Graham)
· 2011-07-11
Summary judgment (creditor-plaintiff) Granted

“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. The obligation arising out of the Debtor’s conduct, which resulted in the entry of the Arapahoe County Judgment, is nondischargeable.”

Motion for leave to file reply (creditor-plaintiff) Denied

“the Motion for Leave to File a Reply in Support of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket # 18) is DENIED.”

In Re Kramer
· 2006-02-21
Objection to claim of exemption (Chapter 7 Trustee) Granted

“ORDERED that the Trustee’s Objection to Debtors’ Claim of Exempt Property (Docket # 8) is SUSTAINED and the Debtor’s claim of exemption in the 162 shares of stock in the Company is disallowed.”

Davis v. Eagle Legacy Credit Union (In Re Davis)
· 2010-06-21
Summary judgment (credit union) Granted

“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.”

Ward Hardwood Floor Service, Inc. v. Jenkins (In Re Jenkins)
· 2010-07-06
Motions to dismiss (debtor) Denied

“ORDERED that Debtor’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint as Untimely is DENIED.”

In Re Burrier
· 2009-04-08
Motion for relief from prior order and automatic stay (mortgage creditor) Granted

“Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s Motion for Relief from Order Entered December 22, 2008 Entitled: Memorandum Opinion and Order Denying Wells Fargo Bank N.A.’s Motion for Court to Enforce Terms of Stipulation and For Relief from the Automatic Stay is GRANTED and the prior order is VACATED.”

Rayner v. Reeves (In Re Reeves)
· 2011-06-21
Summary judgment (creditor-plaintiffs) Granted in part

“The Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED with respect to their claim under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). Because this Court is GRANTING relief under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A)”

Summary judgment (debtor-defendant) Denied

“the cross-motion for summary judgment, as contained in the Response filed by Defendant (Docket # 32) is DENIED.”

In Re Sackett
· 2008-08-22
Objection to claim of exemption (Chapter 7 Trustee) Denied

“ORDERED that the Trustee’s Objection to the exemption with respect to the Vehicle is OVERRULED and DENIED and the Debtor’s exemption is allowed.”

In Re Grein
· 2010-08-09
Motion to compel turnover (Chapter 7 Trustee) Denied

“ORDERED that the Chapter 7 Trustee’s Motion to Compel Turnover is DENIED.”

Peters v. Bryan (In Re Bryan)
· 2012-03-09
Declaratory judgment claim (Chapter 7 Trustee) Granted

“ORDERED that the relief sought in Plaintiffs Complaint is hereby GRANTED.”

Administrative cost claim (Chapter 7 Trustee) Denied

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Second Claim for Relief is DENIED, as administrative costs are not properly before the Court in this proceeding.”

A historical record

Judge Brooks no longer hears cases. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.