Homen, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Belcher

CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Oklahoma
DecidedOctober 9, 2025
Docket25-08008
StatusUnknown

This text of Homen, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Belcher (Homen, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Belcher) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Homen, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Belcher, (Okla. 2025).

Opinion

or □ □□ Dated: October 9, 2025 OY The following is ORDERED: a et □□ 4 ees □□

PAUL R. THOMAS UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA JAMES WYTT BELCHER, Case No. 24-80319-PRT Chapter 7 Debtor.

LUKE HOMEN, CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE, Plaintiff, Vv. Adversary Case No. 25-08008-PRT JAMES WYTT BELCHER; NANCY LEE BELCHER; and JOSHUA BELCHER, Defendants. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff Luke Homen, Chapter 7 Trustee, (“Trustee”) filed this adversary case pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 362, 541, 542, 543, 544, 549 and 550 seeking damages for violation of the automatic stay, to determine the validity, priority and value of Debtor’s interest in real property, to quiet title, declaratory relief, avoidance of postpetition transfer, recovery of avoided transfer

and to compel turnover of property of the estate.1 Defendants Nancy Lee Belcher and Joshua Belcher, proceeding pro se, each filed an answer.2 Plaintiff Trustee Luke Homen filed a Motion for Summary Judgment against Nancy Belcher and Joshua Belcher.3 Neither Nancy Lee Belcher nor Joshua Belcher responded to the Trustee’s Motion for Summary Judgment. After review of

the record and applicable legal authorities, the Court finds that the Trustee is entitled to summary judgment against Defendants Nancy Belcher and Joshua Belcher. Jurisdiction

This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b), and venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1409. Reference to the Court of this matter is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a). This is a core proceeding as contemplated by 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).4 “An issue is ‘genuine’ if there is sufficient evidence on each side so that a rational trier of fact could resolve the issue either way.” Adler v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 670 (10th Cir. 1998). “An issue of fact is ‘material’ if under the substantive law it is essential to the proper disposition of the claim.” Id. Any inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts

1 Complaint, ECF No. 1. 2 Amended Answer of Joshua Belcher, ECF No. 23. Answer of Nancy Belcher, ECF No. 26. Debtor and Defendant James Wytt Belcher did not answer the Complaint, and the Court Clerk entered default against him pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7055 on July 8, 2025. See Clerk’s Entry of Default, ECF No. 28. 3 Plaintiff and Chapter 7 Trustee Luke Homen’s Motion for Summary Judgment, with Brief in Support, ECF No. 34. 4Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), made applicable to this proceeding by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7056. must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (quotation omitted).5 This Court’s Local Rule 7056-1 requires that a motion for summary judgment contain a concise statement of material facts as to which movant contends no genuine issue exists. Each fact shall be stated in a separately numbered paragraph and shall refer with particularity to those portions of the affidavits, discovery materials, pleadings, or other parts of the record before the Court upon which the movant relies.

The Trustee’s Motion for Summary Judgment complies with this Court’s Local Rule 7056 as it includes a numbered list of material facts to which he alleges there is no genuine issue, with references to the record and exhibits supporting those facts. Defendants Joshua Belcher and Nancy Belcher failed to respond to the motion for summary judgment.6 A court may accept non- rebutted evidence as undisputed and true for summary judgment purposes. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Tillison v. Trinity Valley Elec. Coop., 2005 WL 292423, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2005) (citation omitted). Properly supported material facts set forth in a motion for summary judgment are deemed admitted unless specifically controverted by the non-movant. Local Rule 7056-1(B). Accordingly, the Court accepts as true the statement of facts and evidence offered in support of the Trustee’s Motion, as set forth below. Findings of Fact 1. On April 23, 2025, Trustee commenced this action through the filing of his Complaint. ECF No. 1 (the “Complaint”). 2. On June 16, 2025, Joshua Belcher (“Joshua Belcher”) filed his Amended Answer

5 Becker v. Bateman, 709 F.3d 1019, 1022 (10th Cir. 2013). 6 Pro se parties must follow the same rules of procedure that govern parties represented by an attorney. See Nielsen v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276 (10th Cir. 1994). The Court “cannot take on the responsibility of serving as [their] attorney in constructing arguments and searching the record.” Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005). to the Complaint. J. Belcher Am. Answer, ECF No. 23.7

3. On July 1, 2025, Nancy Lee Belcher (“Nancy Belcher”) filed her Answer to the

Complaint. N. Belcher Answer, ECF No. 26.

4. On July 8, 2025, the Court Clerk entered default against James Wytt Belcher (the “Debtor”). Clerk’s Default, ECF No. 28. 5. The Answers to the Complaint filed by Defendants Joshua Belcher and Nancy Belcher do not deny any of the allegations contained within the Complaint, instead denying only the relief requested. J. Belcher Am. Answer, ECF No. 23; N. Belcher Answer, ECF No. 26. 6. Prior to the Petition Date, as hereafter defined, on or about November 20, 2013, the Debtor and Nancy Belcher acquired by joint tenancy warranty deed interest in certain real property more particularly described as follows, to-wit: A tract of land beginning at the SW corner of the following described tract: That part of NW/4 of SW/4 lying South of State Highway No.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
144 F.3d 664 (Tenth Circuit, 1998)
Garrett v. Selby Connor Maddux & Janer
425 F.3d 836 (Tenth Circuit, 2005)
Becker v. Bateman
709 F.3d 1019 (Tenth Circuit, 2013)
In Re Hardy
319 B.R. 5 (M.D. Florida, 2004)
Roberts v. Oliver (In Re Oliver)
414 B.R. 361 (E.D. Tennessee, 2009)
Morris v. Kasparek (In Re Kasparek)
426 B.R. 332 (Tenth Circuit, 2010)
Schlegel v. Kinzie
1932 OK 243 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1932)
Soulé v. Gragg (In re Harrison)
503 B.R. 835 (N.D. Oklahoma, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Homen, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Belcher, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/homen-chapter-7-trustee-v-belcher-okeb-2025.