Charles E. Rendlen III

How Judge Rendlen rules, drawn from 16 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

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

Court
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Position
bankruptcy
Status
Retired 2020
Served
2006–2020
Commissioned
2006-05-23
Education
William Jewell College, B.A., magna cum laude, 1972; University of Missouri-Columbia, J.D., 1976
Signed orders read
16

How Judge Rendlen decides

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

What persuades

A proposed asset sale was approved after the debtor established a sound business purpose, a fair arm's-length price, and a process free from misconduct.

“the proposed sale is for a sound business purpose; the sale price represents the highest and best offer for the assets, and is a fair and reasonable price reached pursuant to an arm’s length negotiation and without misconduct”

A statutory presumption of Chapter 7 abuse was not rebutted where discretionary support for an adult child left funds unavailable to creditors.

“The Debtors’ daughter is not enrolled in school and the Debtors have no legal obligation to continue to support her. To do so is a luxury, not a necessity, for the Debtors.”

Procedural preferences

A dispositive request filed on the trial date was denied where considering it would have required a continuance and prejudiced the remaining parties.

“it is the burden of the movant of such a motion to file it ‘early enough not to delay trial,’”

Rule 9011 sanctions required a genuine violation rather than use as leverage in an employment dispute involving estate counsel.

“seeking relief under Rule 9011 is a serious matter; it should not be requested without significant forethought by the movant”

Signed rulings

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

Digeo, Inc. v. Chang et al. (In re IPDN Corporation)
06-04272 · 2006-09-28
Application for preliminary injunction (Digeo, Inc.) Moot / procedural

“the Court DISMISSES the Adversary Proceeding and the TRO Application for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”

Wilder v. Mercille (In re Melissa Jean Mercille)
06-04338 · 2007-02-07

After trial, the court entered judgment for the debtor on the creditor's nondischargeability complaint; the trial judgment is retained outside motion statistics.

Wilder v. Mercille (In re Melissa Jean Mercille)
06-04338 · 2007-02-07

The separate order implements the trial judgment and is excluded to avoid counting the same disposition twice.

In re Jeffrey Delunas and Laurie Sue Delunas
06-43133 · 2007-03-06
Motions to dismiss (United States Trustee) Granted

“GRANTS the Motion, and ORDERS that the Case be DISMISSED”

In re Jeffrey Delunas and Laurie Sue Delunas
06-43133 · 2007-03-07

The court temporarily stayed the companion dismissal order to permit a possible conversion; no separate party-request disposition is counted.

In re Ricky D. Hicks
07-41189 · 2007-06-01
Motions to dismiss (United States Trustee) Granted

“the Court GRANTS the Motion as set forth in this Order and ORDERS that the Case be DISMISSED”

Riske v. The David Austin Seitz Irrevocable Trust et al. (In re Austin David Seitz and Cherie Ann Seitz)
07-04452 · 2008-10-30

The memorandum explains the trial result and the untimeliness of the judgment-on-the-pleadings request; it is excluded to avoid duplicating the separate order.

Riske v. The David Austin Seitz Irrevocable Trust et al. (In re Austin David Seitz and Cherie Ann Seitz)
07-04452 · 2008-10-30
Judgment on the pleadings (Chapter 7 trustee Charles W. Riske) Denied

“the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED”

In re Go Fig, Inc. et al.
08-40116 · 2009-02-05

The court decided two threshold legal issues but expressly postponed final disposition of the administrative-expense application until an evidentiary hearing.

In re Charles L. Verity and Jerri A. Verity
09-42658 · 2009-07-27
Objection to application to employ counsel (Joyce Kramer) Denied

“the Court ORDERS that the Objection to the Application to Employ Mr. Ponder be OVERRULED”

Motion for sanctions (Joyce Kramer) Denied

“ORDERS that the Motion for Sanctions be DENIED”

Motions to strike (Joyce Kramer) Denied

“The Court ORDERS that the Motion to Strike be DENIED.”

Application to employ counsel (Chapter 7 trustee) Granted

“ORDERS that the Application be APPROVED”

In re Whitney Design, Inc.
09-51928 · 2010-01-29
Amended motion to sell (Whitney Design, Inc.) Granted

“the Amended Motion to Sell [Docket #83] be GRANTED, subject to the Order Sustaining in Part the Objection [Docket #82]”

Objection to asset sale (United States Department of Commerce) Granted in part

“subject to the Order Sustaining in Part the Objection [Docket #82]”

In re Whitney Design, Inc.
09-51928 · 2010-01-29

The memorandum supplies the reasoning for the companion sale order and is excluded to avoid duplicate counting.

A historical record

Judge Rendlen 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.