Kathryn C. Ferguson

How Judge Ferguson rules, drawn from 12 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.

Judge Ferguson 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 New Jersey
Position
bankruptcy
Status
Retired 2023
Served
1993–2023
Commissioned
1993-11-10
Signed orders read
12

How Judge Ferguson decides

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

What persuades

The debtor prevailed on discharge of the tax debt through summary judgment after the court applied the statutory return requirement to the undisputed filing history.

“The court grants summary judgment in favor of Ms. Maitland, and finds that her 2008 tax debt was discharged as part of her bankruptcy case.”

Procedural preferences

The asbestos-plan decision resolved each confirmation defect separately before concluding that the plan was not confirmable as a matter of law.

“Accordingly, the Court finds that the Plan is not confirmable as a matter of law.”

Cautions

A creditor's overall nondischargeability theory failed even though one specifically proven inspection expense remained excepted from discharge.

“The remainder of the Plaintiffs’ claim is discharged pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727.”

Signed rulings

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

Kay Berry, Inc. v. Pearman (In re Pearman)
· 2010-06-23
Nondischargeability claim section 523 a 6 (Kay Berry, Inc.) Denied

“Judgment is denied on Count I of the Complaint.”

Related nondischargeability count (Kay Berry, Inc.) Moot / procedural

“Given that ruling, Count II is moot.”

Calascibetta v. Cooper (In re Cooper)
· 2007-06-26
Summary judgment (Chapter 7 Trustee) Denied

“The motion for summary judgment is denied.”

In re Congoleum Corp.
· 2007-01-26
Summary judgment bondholder rejected plan funding (Plan opponents) Granted

“a Bondholder-rejected Plan satisfies the funding requirements of § 524(g)(2)(B)(i)(III);”

Summary judgment bondholder supported plan funding (Plan opponents) Granted

“a Bondholder-supported Plan does not satisfy the funding requirements of § 524(g)(2)(B)(i)(III);”

Summary judgment abi contribution fairness (Plan opponents) Granted

“ABI’s contribution does not satisfy the ‘fair and equitable’ requirements of § 524(g)(4)(B)(ii);”

Summary judgment plan classification (Plan opponents) Granted

“the current classification scheme in the Plan does not provide substantially similar treatment for similarly situated creditors;”

Summary judgment debtor contribution fairness (Plan opponents) Denied

“whether the Debtors contributions satisfy the ‘fair and equitable’ requirements of § 524(g)(4)(B)(ii);”

Summary judgment release and exculpation (Plan opponents) Denied

“the release and exculpation provisions because it has not been established that this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b);”

Summary judgment plan trust loan and escrow (Plan opponents) Denied

“whether the loan from the Congoleum Plan Trust and the escrow agreement violate § 524(g).”

Confirmation of tenth modified plan (Congoleum Corp.) Denied

“Accordingly, the Court finds that the Plan is not confirmable as a matter of law.”

In re Congoleum Corp.
· 2007-02-01
Motion for summary judgment on cna plan (Debtors) Granted in part

“Summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part.”

Motion to reinstate exclusivity period (Debtors) Denied

“The Court declines to reinstate the Debtors’ exclusivity period.”

In re Hawk
· 2004-08-06
Motion for sanctions for stay violation (Debtor) Denied

“the Debtor’s motion for sanctions is denied”

Request to void actions taken in violation of stay (Debtor) Granted

“the additional request to void all actions taken in violation of the stay is granted.”

In re Schuster
· 2000-12-21
Debtor cross motion to exclude annuities from estate (Debtor) Granted

“the court will grant the Debtor’s cross-motion and declare these annuities to be exempt from property of the estate.”

Starr v. Reynolds (In re Reynolds)
· 1996-06-10
Nondischargeability complaint (Plaintiffs) Denied

“The court will enter judgment in favor of the defendant.”

In re Copulos
· 1997-06-30
Debtor motion to exclude pension plan from estate (Debtors) Granted

“the court will enter an order declaring the AMS Plan to be excluded from the Debtors’ estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 541(c)(2)”

Sureties motion to strike or modify pension plan (Sureties) Denied

“The Sureties’ Motion to Strike or Modify AMS Plan will be denied with the standard order.”

In re Yuhas
· 1995-09-15
Debtor request to exclude ira from estate (Debtor) Granted

“Counsel for the Debtor shall submit a form of order determining that the Debtor’s IRA is not property of this estate.”

Brihn v. Truch (In re Truch)
· 2014-04-17
Rule 52 c motion for judgment on partial findings (Debtors) Granted

“The court is granting the Truch’s Rule 52(c) motion and will dismiss the complaint for the reasons stated.”

Maitland v. State of New Jersey Division of Taxation (In re Maitland)
· 2015-06-10
Motion to vacate prior orders (Elaine Maitland) Granted

“The court hereby vacates its orders of February 17, 2015.”

Summary judgment (Elaine Maitland) Granted

“The court grants summary judgment in favor of Ms. Maitland, and finds that her 2008 tax debt was discharged as part of her bankruptcy case.”

Cross motion for summary judgment (New Jersey Division of Taxation) Denied

“The court denies the cross-motion for summary judgment by the Division of Tax.”

Starr v. Reynolds (In re Reynolds)
· 1995-08-18
Nondischargeability claim section 523 a 2 (Plaintiffs) Denied

“The Plaintiffs have failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that their claim is nondischargeable under either 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) or (a)(6).”

Nondischargeability claim section 523 a 6 (Plaintiffs) Granted in part

“the court finds that pursuant to section 523(a)(6) the cost of the home inspection, in the amount of $250, is non-dischargeable. The remainder of the Plaintiffs’ claim is discharged pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727.”

Caseload & timing

From public federal docket records for this judge.

No case-duration or motion-timing estimate is reported because the sampled matters contained no archived docket entries.

A historical record

Judge Ferguson 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.