Judicial:

In re: BLAKE LAWRENCE KRETCHMAR, Debtor. SUSAN MANCHESTER, TRUSTEE & FARM CREDIT OF ENID, PCA Plaintiffs, v. BLAKE LAWRENCE KRETCHMAR, DANNY KRETCHMAR, DEBBIE KRETCHMAR, & KRETCHMAR FARMS, Defendants., No. 16-14337-JDL, 2018 WL 4859251 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. Oct. 5, 2018);

Before the Court is the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider1 (the “Motion”) [Doc. 52], the Response of Danny Kretchmar and Debbie Kretchmar to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider (the “Response”) [Doc. 57] and the Plaintiffs’ Reply to Kretchmar Parents’ Response to Motion to Reconsider [Doc. 58]. The Motion seeks the Court to reconsider its Opinion and Order on Motion to Dismiss entered on February 5, 2018, in which it dismissed without prejudice five (5) of sixteen (16) Claims for Relief and dismissed with prejudice the one Claim for Relief seeking the substantive consolidation of the estates of the Debtor with those of his non-debtor parents. [Doc 43].
Plaintiffs assert that the Court erred in having: (1) dismissed without prejudice Plaintiff Farm Credit of Enid, PCA’s (“Farm Credit”) Claim for Relief 1 which sought liquidation of Farm Credit’s deficiency claim against the Debtor; (2) apparently inadvertently dismiss with prejudice the claim of substantive consolidation against all defendants, including non-debtor entity Kretchmar Farms which had not entered an appearance in the case and was in default; (3) failed to afford Plaintiffs the opportunity to amend their Complaint before dismissing with prejudice the substantive consolidation claim as against Kretchmar Farms; and (4) failed to apply the proper motion to dismiss standard of accepting as true all of Plaintiffs well-pleaded allegations and construing such allegations in the light most favorable to the claimants.

Legislative:

H.R. 7042: To exempt certain wildfire mitigation activities from certain environmental requirements, and for other purposes. Info HERE

H.R. 7034: To approve the Kickapoo Tribe Water Rights Settlement Agreement, and for other purposes.  Info HERE