Frank J. Bailey

How Judge Bailey rules, drawn from 8 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge Bailey 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 Massachusetts
Position
bankruptcy
Status
No longer serving
Commissioned
2009-01-30
Signed orders read
8

How Judge Bailey decides

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

What persuades

At the pleading stage, factual assertions outside the complaint did not justify dismissal and were left for summary judgment.

“relying as it does on facts outside the pleadings and essentially seeking to put the Debtor to her proof on the issue, would be appropriate to a motion for summary judgment but is not cause to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).”

Procedural preferences

Issues resolved through confirmation had to be raised during the confirmation proceeding and could not be relitigated afterward.

“If Tools believed itself entitled to a limit on value, or to a credit on account of the adequate protection payments, the time to litigate those issues was during the confirmation proceedings.”

Cautions

A setoff dispute was analyzed under the Bankruptcy Code's specific setoff provision rather than the preference provision governing transfers.

“Congress intended to exclude set-off from the ‘transfer’ definition in order to assure that setoff would be treated exclusively under the provision of § 553.”

Signed rulings

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

Mae v. U.S. Bank, N.A. (In re Mae)
· 2011-06-10
Motion to dismiss complaint (U.S. Bank, N.A. and America's Servicing Company) Denied

“denied as to Count I for unjust enrichment,”

Motion to dismiss complaint (U.S. Bank, N.A. and America's Servicing Company) Granted

“granted as to Count II insofar as that count is based on 940 CMR 8.06(15) and G.L. c. 93A,”

Motion to dismiss complaint (U.S. Bank, N.A. and America's Servicing Company) Denied

“denied as to Count II insofar as that count is based on G.L. c. 183C, the Massachusetts Predatory Home Loan Practices Act,”

Motion to dismiss complaint (U.S. Bank, N.A. and America's Servicing Company) Granted

“granted as to Count III for fraud,”

Motion to dismiss complaint (U.S. Bank, N.A. and America's Servicing Company) Denied

“denied as to Count IV,”

Motion to dismiss complaint (U.S. Bank, N.A. and America's Servicing Company) Granted

“granted as to the Count V claim under RESPA,”

Motion to dismiss complaint (U.S. Bank, N.A. and America's Servicing Company) Granted

“granted as to the Count V claim under G.L. c. 93A and 940 CMR 8.05,”

Motion to dismiss complaint (U.S. Bank, N.A. and America's Servicing Company) Granted

“granted as to Count VI for intentional infliction of emotional distress.”

Fernandes v. U.S. Bank, N.A. (In re Fernandes)
· 2011-01-31
Motion to dismiss complaint (U.S. Bank, N.A.) Granted

“granted as to Counts I (Violation of Duty of Good Faith and Reasonable Diligence in Exercise of Power of Sale), II (Breach of HAMP Contract), III (Deceit), IIX (sic) (RESPA), IX (Intentional Infliction of Emotion Distress), and XI (11 U.S.C. § 548(a)(2));”

Motion to dismiss complaint (U.S. Bank, N.A.) Granted
Motion to dismiss complaint (U.S. Bank, N.A.) Granted
Motion to dismiss complaint (U.S. Bank, N.A.) Granted
Motion to dismiss complaint (U.S. Bank, N.A.) Granted
Motion to dismiss complaint (U.S. Bank, N.A.) Granted
Motion to dismiss complaint (U.S. Bank, N.A.) Denied

“denied as to Counts IV (Unjust Enrichment), VII (Violation of G.L. c. 188, § 28C), VIII (Violation of G.L. c. 188C, the Massachusetts Predatory Home Loan Practices Act), and X (Foreclosing Without Power of Sale);”

Motion to dismiss complaint (U.S. Bank, N.A.) Denied
Motion to dismiss complaint (U.S. Bank, N.A.) Denied
Motion to dismiss complaint (U.S. Bank, N.A.) Denied
Motion to dismiss complaint (U.S. Bank, N.A.) Granted

“granted without prejudice to reassertion after completion of demand-letter process as to Counts V (Violation of G.L. c. 93A and 940 CMR 8.06(1)) and VIII (as to violation 940 CMR 8.06(15))”

Motion to dismiss complaint (U.S. Bank, N.A.) Granted
Tools-4-Hire, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Construction (In re Tools-4-Hire, Inc.)
· 2010-10-05
Summary judgment (Wells Fargo Construction) Granted

“the Court hereby grants the motion of Wells Fargo for summary judgment as to the Debtor’s complaint”

Summary judgment (Wells Fargo Construction) Denied

“denies the same motion as to Wells Fargo’s counterclaim”

Summary judgment (Tools-4-Hire, Inc.) Denied

“denies the Debtor’s motion for summary judgment.”

Damas v. United States ex rel. Colvin (In re Damas)
· 2014-01-06
Summary judgment (James Damas and Maria Kolettis) Denied

“Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is denied”

Summary judgment (United States of America) Granted

“the United States’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.”

In re Wyman
· 2010-09-27
Objection to claimed unemployment compensation exemption (Chapter 13 Trustee) Granted

“a separate order will enter sustaining the Trustee’s objection to Debtors’ claim of exemption”

Agin v. Chambers (In re Ruel)
· 2011-10-12
Complaint to avoid preferential mortgage transfer (Warren Agin, Chapter 7 Trustee) Granted

“judgment will enter avoiding the mortgage.”

In re Garajau
· 2013-09-30
Motion to dismiss chapter 13 case (Chapter 13 Trustee) Denied

“the Trustee’s motion for order dismissing the case will be denied.”

In re Garajau
· 2014-01-23
Motion to modify confirmed chapter 13 plan (Chapter 13 Trustee) Denied

“A separate order will enter denying modification.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

The six sampled matters were all terminated. Their filing-to-termination durations were 62, 116, 124, 303, 364, and 371 days; this small fixed sample is descriptive rather than a court-wide caseload measure.

A historical record

Judge Bailey 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.