B&W Remodeling, Inc. v. Cofield et al

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WILSON DIVISION
IN RE:
SHARON VERNELL COFIELD
Debtor
CHAPTER 7
CASE NUMBER 10-00007-8-RDD
B&W REMODELING, INC.
Plaintiff
v.
SHARON VERNELL COFIELD
Defendant
ADVERSARY PROCEEDING
NUMBER 10-00070-8-RDD
ORDER
On July 21, 2011, this Court requested that each of the parties to this adversary proceeding
file a memorandum of law as to the effect of the ruling in Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S.—, 131 S. Ct.
2594, 252011 WL 2472792 (June 23, 2011), on this Court’s authority to render final judgment in the
pending adversary proceeding.
On August 1, 2011, B & W Remodeling, Inc. (the “Plaintiff”), filed its Memorandum of Law -
Application of Stern v. Marshall. On August 15, 2011, Sharon Vernell Cofield (the “Defendant”)
filed a Brief of Defendant Sharon Vernell Cofield.
SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 18 day of August, 2011.
________________________________________
Randy D. Doub
United States Bankruptcy Judge
____________________________________________________________
Case 10-00070-8-RDD Doc 55 Filed 08/18/11 Entered 08/18/11 14:41:33 Page 1 of 2

The Court having considered these memoranda and conducted its own research as to the
potential limitation of its jurisdiction under Stern v. Marshall, hereby finds that the breach of contract
defense raised by the Defendant is, in fact, not a counterclaim, on which the Defendant is seeking
damages. The alleged breach of contract defense is so intertwined with the Plaintiff’s claim, that
consideration of the facts and circumstances of the breach of contract defense is necessary to
determine the outcome of this proceeding. 	Plaintiff’s claim is to determine the amount of its claim
and whether or not the claim is nondischargeable. 	Defendant’s defense of breach of contract, is a
defense to the amount claimed by Plaintiff. 	Stern stands for the proposition that if the nature of the
debtor’s counterclaim is such that it would necessarily have been fully resolved through the process
of ruling on the creditor’s proof of claim, then the Bankruptcy Court has jurisdiction to decide the
counterclaim. Id. at 2620.
Therefore, this is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B). This Court has the
statutory and constitutional authority to hear and render judgment on all issues raised in this adversary
proceeding. Trial of the matter shall commence at Wilson, North Carolina on August 25, 2011 at
9:30am.
SO ORDERED.
END OF DOCUMENT
2
Case 10-00070-8-RDD Doc 55 Filed 08/18/11 Entered 08/18/11 14:41:33 Page 2 of 2