UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
PIKEVILLE DIVISION
IN RE:
GROVER MURPHY CASE NO. 97-71012
DEBTOR
CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY PLAINTIFF
VS: ADV. 97-7044
GROVER MURPHY DEFENDANT
AND
PAUL D. DEATON INTERVENING PLAINTIFF
VS:
CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY THIRD PARTY DEFENDANT
OPINION AND ORDER
There is pending before the Court a Motion filed by Paul D. Deaton, attorney for the debtor in this proceeding, on behalf of himself, as an intervening plaintiff in the proceeding, to remand this proceeding to the Martin Circuit Court. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company has resisted the Motion contending that the matter is either a core proceeding or amounts to claims litigation against the debtor.
A reading of the Motion and the intervening plaintiff
=s Complaint leads the Court to conclude that the Complaint filed by Deaton states a claim for relief, if at all, on his own behalf and not on behalf of the debtor or estate in this proceeding.A review of the bankruptcy case underlying this adversary proceeding shows that it is a no asset case. To the extent that a recovery by Deaton against the plaintiff in this action leads to an indemnity claim against the estate, it would appear that such claim would be dischargeable as to the debtor and, it being a no asset case, would have no effect on the debtor or creditors.
The plaintiff cites this Court
=s recent decision of In Re Travel Professionals International, Scott County, Inc., 31 B.C.D. 767 (Bkrtcy. E.D.Ky. 1997). In that case, this Court held that it was not required to remand the matter to the state court since the litigation removed involved a large proportion of the assets of the estate and the claim of the major creditor in the proceeding. The present case is distinguished from Travel Professionals by the fact that it appears to be a no asset case unless assets are later discovered.While the present proceeding is arguably related to the bankruptcy proceeding, it appears that the present litigation between the attorney for the debtor and Connecticut General, which arose under state law, should be decided by courts of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby
ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
Dated this _____ day of March, 1998.
BY THE COURT
______________________________
JUDGE
COPIES TO:
Debtor
Lee Kessinger III, Esq.
Paul D. Deaton, Esq.