Gerardo Lorenzo Linarducci

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
IN RE: 	)
)
GERARDO LORENZO LINARDUCCI, 	) 	Case No. 25-03768-JMC-13
)
Debtor. 	)
__________________________________________)
ORDER REGARDING RECEIVER’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay
(With Waiver of Deadlines in 11 U.S.C. § 362(e)) filed by Kenneth D. Murena, as the court-
appointed receiver (“Receiver”) in the SEC Action (as that term is defined below), on
November 19, 2025 (Docket No. 77) (the “Motion”). The Court, having reviewed the Motion,
the Brief in Support of Receiver’s Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay (With Waiver of
Deadlines in 11 U.S.C. § 362(e)) filed by Receiver on November 19, 2025 (Docket No. 78), the
Objection to Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay filed by Gerardo Lorenzo Linarducci
(“Debtor”) on December 3, 2025 (Docket No. 79), Debtor’s Brief in Opposition to the Receiver’s
Motion for Relief from Stay filed on December 3, 2025 (Docket No. 80) and the Notice of Filing
SO ORDERED: March 13, 2026.
______________________________
James M. Carr
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 25-03768-JMC-13 Doc 103 Filed 03/13/26 EOD 03/13/26 15:58:23 Pg 1 of 8

Declaration in Support of Receiver’s Motion for Stay Relief (Doc. 77) filed by Receiver on
January 26, 2026 (Docket No. 93) (the “Declaration”) and the documents attached thereto,
having heard the representations of Receiver, Receiver’s counsel and Debtor’s counsel at a
hearing on January 29, 2026, having reviewed Receiver’s Supplemental Brief in Support of Stay
Relief Motion (Doc. 77) Regarding Legal Bases for Claims, Standing of Receiver, and Effect of
Bankruptcy on the Receiver’s Constructive Trust Remedy filed on February 11, 2026 (Docket
No. 95) (the “Supplemental Brief”), having heard the representations of Receiver’s counsel and
Debtor’s counsel at a hearing on February 18, 2026, and being otherwise duly advised, now
GRANTS the Motion as follows:
Background
In the Motion, Receiver recites these alleged background “facts”, which Receiver
supported with his Declaration:
5. 	Prior to the Petition Date, the Debtor was a high-level agent of
Drive Planning, LLC (“Drive Planning”). On August 13, 2024, the Securities and
Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filed an action against Drive Planning alleging a
massive Ponzi scheme, and such action is pending in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia as SEC v. Drive Planning, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 1:24-cv-03583 (N.D. Ga.) (the “SEC Action”).
6. 	On August 13, 2024, the District Court in the SEC Action
appointed [Receiver] as the [r]eceiver over Drive Planning and all assets owned
by, or purchased with funds derived from investors or clients of, Drive Planning.
7. 	The Debtor and his wife, Jennifer Jones Linarducci, hold bare legal
title to and reside in a $2 million home located on Geist Reservoir at 12162 Pearl
Bay Ridge, Indianapolis, Indiana 46236 (the “Property”), which they acquired on
July 10, 2023.
8. 	During his investigation, the Receiver discovered that proceeds of
the Ponzi scheme orchestrated by Drive Planning and its agents, specifically the
sum of $1,920,535.75, were wired to a closing agent on July 10, 2023, and used
by the Debtor to purchase the Property.
9. 	On June 12, 2025, in order to recover the Property for the benefit
Case 25-03768-JMC-13 Doc 103 Filed 03/13/26 EOD 03/13/26 15:58:23 Pg 2 of 8

of the receivership estate, the Receiver filed a Motion for Turnover of and
Imposition of Constructive Trust on Real Property in Indiana Traceable to Drive
Planning, LLC and Request for Expedited Relief (the “Constructive Trust
Motion”) in the SEC Action.
(Motion, ¶¶ 5-9.1)
The Request for Relief
By the Motion, Receiver asks the Court to modify the stay of 11 U.S.C. § 3622 to allow
Receiver to continue to prosecute the Constructive Trust Motion in the District Court to recover
the Property for the benefit of defrauded investors.
The Motion asserts a different “cause” for modification of the stay than is normally
asserted. Usually, a movant asserts that a debtor has not provided adequate protection of the
movant’s interest, usually a lien, in property being used by a debtor in possession of bankruptcy
estate property. Here, the Motion asserts that the Property is not (and never was) property of
Debtor or Debtor’s bankruptcy estate when this bankruptcy case was commenced on June 27,
2025 (the “Petition Date”).
Receiver contends that there is no stay applicable to Receiver’s assertions of Receiver’s
in rem rights of ownership of the Property and Receiver’s efforts to recover the Property.
Receiver argues that the Property, as properly considered and adjudged by a court of competent
jurisdiction applying applicable non-bankruptcy law to the material facts and circumstances,
belongs to Receiver, not Debtor. Moreover, says the Receiver, the Property belonged to
Receiver since Debtor purportedly acquired by the Property on July 10, 2023, long before the
Petition Date.
1 	A copy of the Constructive Trust Motion is attached to the Motion as Exhibit A.
2 	Unless otherwise noted, all statutory references herein are to the United States Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C.
§§ 101 et seq.
Case 25-03768-JMC-13 Doc 103 Filed 03/13/26 EOD 03/13/26 15:58:23 Pg 3 of 8

Receiver explained more fully the legal basis of his contention in the Supplemental Brief.
In essence, Receiver argues that his position regarding ownership of the Property is based on
(1) prior orders entered by the Receivership Court (the “Prior Orders”); and (2) applicable state
constructive trust law and related principles.
Prior Orders
In support of Receiver’s Motion, Receiver filed his Declaration. In the Declaration,
Receiver sets out the following contentions regarding Prior Orders:
21. 	The Receivership Order defines “Receivership Assets” and
“Recoverable Assets” to include, among other things, “all assets of Drive
Planning, LLC (“Receivership Assets”) and the assets of Defendant Burkhalter
and the Relief Defendants that: (a) are attributable to funds derived from
investors or clients of the Defendants; (b) are held in constructive trust for the
Defendants; and/or (c) may otherwise be includable as assets of the estates of the
Defendants (collectively, the “Recoverable Assets”)”. See Receivership Order at
pp. 1-2.
22. 	All Receivership Assets and Recoverable Assets are subject to the
exclusive jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Georgia. See id. at p. 2.
23. 	The Receivership Order further authorizes the Receiver to locate,
marshal, and recover all property interests of whatever kind and wherever situated
that Drive Planning owns, possesses, has a beneficial interest in, or controls
directly or indirectly, including real property purchased with investor funds,
regardless of the nominal titleholder. See id. at pp. 1-2.
24. 	The Pearl Bay Residence falls within the definition of
Receivership Assets and/or Recoverable Assets under the Receivership Order
because it was acquired using funds traceable to Drive Planning investor deposits
and was purchased for the personal benefit of a Drive Planning managing partner
without any written loan agreement, promissory note, or evidence of repayment
obligations. See id.
(Declaration, ¶¶ 21-24.)
In addition, in the Constructive Trust Motion, Receiver asserts that the Prior Orders
entered before the Petition Date by the Receivership Court establish Receiver’s pre-petition
Case 25-03768-JMC-13 Doc 103 Filed 03/13/26 EOD 03/13/26 15:58:23 Pg 4 of 8

ownership of the Property. Receiver makes such assertions in section III.a (“The Court Has
Jurisdiction Over the Linarducci Property”) at pp. 4-6 and section III.c (“Court Orders Require
Turnover of Linarducci Property to Receiver”) at pp. 8-12 of the Constructive Trust Motion.
Therefore, in addition to his argument for imposition of a constructive trust, Receiver asserts that
the Prior Orders establish his ownership rights and negate Debtor’s claim of ownership of the
Property.
Constructive Trust Assertions
In the Supplemental Brief, Receiver contends that (1) under applicable “ ‘constructive
trust law’, a constructive trust is imposed by operation of law upon [the Property] acquired with
fraudulently obtained funds at the time of the acquisition in favor of the defrauded parties” and
(2) the Property “acquired through fraud is not property of the bankruptcy estate”.
(Supplemental Brief, p. 2.) Receiver asserts that:
While the Debtor holds bare legal title, the equitable ownership in the Property
rests with the Receivership Estate, which was established well before the petition
date for the benefit of defrauded investors whose funds were used to purchase the
Property. In particular, a constructive trust arose by operation of law at the
moment investor funds were fraudulently misappropriated and used to acquire the
Property, such that equitable title never vested in the Debtor and, as such, the
Property never became property of the bankruptcy estate. As a result, the
Property is held in constructive trust for the benefit of the defrauded investors,
and the Receivership Court, pursuant to the foregoing legal principles and the
Receivership Order, has jurisdiction to determine that such Property constitutes an
asset of the Receivership Estate. As such, cause exists to lift the stay so the
Receivership Court may apply applicable law and enforce its Order by
adjudicating title ownership and rightful possession of the Property.
(Supplemental Brief, pp. 2-3.)
Case 25-03768-JMC-13 Doc 103 Filed 03/13/26 EOD 03/13/26 15:58:23 Pg 5 of 8

Reconciling Constructive Trust Principles with Bankruptcy
The Motion causes the Court to reconcile (1) the state law principles including
constructive trust law that Receiver relies upon with (2) principles supporting and underlying
Federal bankruptcy law.
Federal bankruptcy law, within its Congressionally mandated ambit, is preeminent over
all contrary state law pursuant to Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution and
principles of Federal preeminence. A bankruptcy court has exclusive and paramount in rem
jurisdiction over all property of a debtor’s bankruptcy estate established under § 541, wherever
located. One of the fundamental policies underlying bankruptcy is the goal of achieving equality
of distribution among similarly situated creditors. That policy mandates that all claims of
unsecured creditors are treated the same with respect to distribution from property of a
bankruptcy estate except those claims that fall within the expressly enumerated priority claim
categories set forth in § 507.
Courts have had to reconcile bankruptcy and constructive trust principles in many
different contexts and circumstances. There are many decisions and much commentary by
academics and others regarding the reconciliation of such principles and whether under the
relevant facts and circumstances a constructive trust should be imposed post-bankruptcy to cause
a non-priority unsecured creditor to achieve a fuller recovery than other similarly situated
creditors. For example, see XL/Datacomp, Inc. v. Wilson (In re Omegas Group, Inc.), 16 F.3d
1443 (6th Cir. 1994) and CRS Steam, Inc. v. Eng’g Resources, Inc. (In re CRS Steam, Inc.), 225
B.R. 833 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1998).
Receiver cites to an unpublished opinion by Bankruptcy Judge Lorch in Friona
Industries, L.P. v. Eastern Livestock Co., LLC, Case No. 10-93904-BHL-11, Adv. Proc. No. 11-
Case 25-03768-JMC-13 Doc 103 Filed 03/13/26 EOD 03/13/26 15:58:23 Pg 6 of 8

59093. (Supplemental Brief, pp. 19-20.) In this Court’s view, Judge Lorch got it right when he
opined that the core task in reconciling whether a constructive trust assertion prevents property
from becoming property of a debtor’s bankruptcy estate is whether applicable law makes the
imposition of a constructive trust (1) a remedy that takes effect only if and when a court of
competent jurisdiction imposes such a trust (in which case bankruptcy should prevent the
imposition of a trust); or (2) a property concept that causes equitable title to property to pass to a
defrauded party at the moment the fruits of the fraud are used to acquire the property and before
the bankruptcy is commenced (in which case bankruptcy should not prevent the imposition of a
trust).
If, as contended by Receiver, applicable law (including constructive trust law) caused
Debtor and his spouse3 to acquire only “legal” title to the Property and prevented them from ever
acquiring any “equitable interest”, then the Property is not property of Debtor’s bankruptcy
estate per § 541(d). But the critical time reference continues to be the status of ownership as of
the Petition Date, not as it might later be reformed.
Because the Receivership Court is so deeply enmeshed in the entirety of the
consequences of the action of Drive Planning and its agents, that court has parties before it that
this Court does not have jurisdiction over, and that court is in the best position to interpret its
Prior Orders, justice and judicial economy will be best served by having the Receivership Court
decide the constructive trust and Prior Orders issues to determine the status of ownership of the
3 	Had Debtor and his spouse acquired more than mere “legal” title to the Property, they would then have held
the Property in a tenancy somewhat peculiar to the State of Indiana – tenancy by the entireties. The concept of
entireties property in Indiana includes the notion that while the married couple continue to own the real property,
neither spouse has a separate cognizable ownership interest in the property. This concept raises interesting questions
regarding whether and to what extent any interest in the Property would have been property of Debtor’s bankruptcy
estate had the couple acquired full ownership. In that case and as a general matter, the Property would have been
property of Debtor’s bankruptcy estate if and only to the extent creditors exist with joint claims against Debtor and
his non-filing spouse.
Case 25-03768-JMC-13 Doc 103 Filed 03/13/26 EOD 03/13/26 15:58:23 Pg 7 of 8

Property as of the Petition Date.
Therefore, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion as follows:
The automatic stay is hereby MODIFIED to allow Receiver to resume litigation of and
continue to prosecute the Constructive Trust Motion in the Receivership Court asking that court
to make, among other things, the determination of whether, under applicable non-bankruptcy law
(including the Prior Orders and constructive trust principles), Receiver is entitled to have a
constructive trust imposed upon and to confirm that Receiver held full title to and owned the
Property prior to and as of the Petition Date.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
# # #
Case 25-03768-JMC-13 Doc 103 Filed 03/13/26 EOD 03/13/26 15:58:23 Pg 8 of 8