Basil H. Lorch III

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

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

Court
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Indiana
Position
bankruptcy
Status
Retired 2019
Served
1992–2019
Appointed by
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Commissioned
1992-04-14
Education
Indiana University Maurer School of Law, 1974, Order of the Coif
Signed orders read
20

How Judge Lorch decides

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

What persuades

A creditor seeking nondischargeability based on a financial statement must prove reasonable reliance; ignoring obvious warning signs defeats that element.

“The Court finds that the bank has failed to satisfy its burden of proving, by the preponderance of the evidence, that it reasonably relied on Hanselman’s representations as to his financial condition.”

A longstanding course of trustworthy dealings can support reasonable reliance on a debtor's representations even when further investigation was possible.

“The plaintiffs will not be penalized for not investigating the situation further, and their reliance on the debtor’s representations is found to be reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances.”

Procedural preferences

A default judgment does not establish collateral estoppel when the underlying liability issues were not actually litigated.

“the issues presented in the complaint were not actually litigated.”

Cautions

Priority requests require a clear statutory basis; policy considerations alone do not convert pension-related claims into administrative expenses.

“The plain meaning of the statute supports the Trustee’s position herein and dictates a finding that PBGC’s claims be treated as unsecured.”

The court may defer a dischargeability issue when contingent state-court and divorce proceedings make the dispute unripe.

“the Court declines to rule on the dischargeability of these obligations, finding that they are not yet ripe for adjudication for a number of reasons.”

Signed rulings

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

Hayden v. Hayden (In re Hayden)
· 2011-06-01
Complaint to determine nondischargeability (Kristi Hayden) Granted in part

“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Kristi is granted a judgment that Gregory may not discharge his obligations to pay child support and maintenance and to pay the mortgages on the marital residence. Further, the Court declines to rule on whether Gregory may discharge his obligations under Paragraph 4 of the Provisional Order, finding the matter not to be ripe for adjudication.”

In re Spruch
· 2008-11-12
Objection to confirmation of plan (eCAST Settlement Corporation and related creditors) Denied

“The Objection to Confirmation filed by eCAST is, accordingly, overruled.”

Peoples Trust & Savings Bank v. Hanselman (In re Hanselman)
· 2011-04-21
Complaint to determine nondischargeability (Peoples Trust & Savings Bank) Denied

“Peoples’ claim of nondischargeability as to Claim 1-1 is, accordingly, DENIED.”

Kentuckiana Medical Center LLC v. Leasing Group Pool II, LLC (In re Kentuckiana Medical Center LLC)
· 2011-05-06
Summary judgment (Leasing Group Pool II, LLC) Denied

“The Court does, accordingly, GRANT the Plaintiffs Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and DENY the Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant, The Leasing Group, LLC.”

Cross motion for summary judgment (Kentuckiana Medical Center LLC) Granted
In re Grinkmeyer
· 2011-08-01
Motion to dismiss chapter 7 case (United States Trustee) Granted

“Based upon the foregoing, the Court now GRANTS the Trustee’s Motion to Dismiss pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(3) and HEREBY ORDERS that this case be dismissed pursuant to such section unless the Debtors convert the case to a proceeding under Chapter 13 within twenty (20) days of the entry of this Order.”

In re Klipsch
· 2010-06-07
Objection to claimed exemption (Chapter 7 Trustee) Granted

“For all of the foregoing reasons, the Trustee’s Objection is sustained.”

In re Hedge
· 2008-09-17
Objection to confirmation of plan (eCAST Settlement Corporation and related creditors) Granted

“Therefore, eCast’s Objection to Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan should be, and hereby is, SUSTAINED.”

In re White
· 2009-09-29
Objection to proof of claim (Chapter 13 Debtor) Granted

“The Debtor’s Amended Plan which bifurcates the claim into secured and unsecured portions is, accordingly, approved.”

Request for confirmation of amended plan (Chapter 13 Debtor) Granted
In re Pedigo
· 2003-04-01
Motion to dismiss chapter 7 case (United States Trustee) Denied

“For all of the forgoing reasons, the United States Trustee’s Motion to Dismiss is hereby DENIED.”

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Maio (In re Maio)
· 1994-11-07
Motion to dismiss adversary proceeding (Charles Maio) Denied

“In accordance with the foregoing, the Court does hereby DENY the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.”

American Express Travel Related Services Co. v. Nahas (In re Nahas)
· 1994-08-08
Summary judgment (American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc.) Granted

“The Court, having considered the foregoing arguments of counsel and having reviewed the pleadings and applicable law, and being otherwise fully and sufficiently advised, hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment”

Request for attorney fees (American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc.) Denied

“The plaintiffs attorney’s fees incurred in connection with the stated account, however, do not represent monies obtained by false pretenses, a false representation or actual fraud, and do not affect the amount of money that the debtor obtained from American Express by those means. That debt is, accordingly, dischargeable.”

In re Foster
· 1994-05-20
Objection to claimed exemption (Objecting parties) Granted

“the debtors’ claimed exemption for pre-paid life insurance is hereby disallowed and the respective Objections to Exemptions in that regard are, therefore, SUSTAINED.”

Objection to claimed exemption (Citizens) Denied

“The Court, for the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum, does hereby further FIND that Citizens’ Objection to the debtors’ claimed exemption in the two retirement accounts is DENIED.”

A historical record

Judge Lorch 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.