Stich v. Mattingly

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
IN RE: 	)
)
KEVIN W. STICH 	) 	Case No. 25-32249(1)(13)
)
Debtor 	)
)
KEVIN W. STICH 	)
)
Plaintiff 	) 	Adv. No. 25-03052
)
v. 	)
)
DALE MATTINGLY 	)
d/b/a DaPAULA PROPERTIES 	)
)
Defendant 	)
MEMORANDUM-OPINION
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment filed on behalf of
the Plaintiff, Kevin W. Stich (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff” or “Stich”), against Defendant
Dale Mattingly d/b/a DaPaula Properties (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant” or “Mattingly”).
The Court reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant’s Response to
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. For the following reasons, the Court will DENY the
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
INTRODUCTION
On February 10, 2026, Debtor/Plaintiff Kevin W. Stich filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment against Defendant Dale Mattingly seeking an Order declaring the following: (1) that
Judgment Liens filed by Mattingly in Jefferson and Bullitt Counties in 2020 have been satisfied
Case 25-03052-jal Doc 13 Filed 05/05/26 Entered 05/05/26 15:07:04 Page 1 of 5

2
and are no longer enforceable against Stich’s properties; (2) that Mattingly be directed to execute
and file releases of the Judgment Liens recorded in Jefferson and Bullitt Counties within fourteen
(14) days of this Order; (3) that Mattingly’s claim in Stich’s Chapter 13 case be reclassified from
secured to unsecured; and (4) that the Court grant such other and further relief as the Court deems
just and proper.
The Court finds no support for Stich’s claims herein and for the following reasons, will
DENY Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
On March 20, 2020, Mattingly filed a Complaint against Stich in Jefferson Circuit Court,
under Case No. 20-CI-002044, asserting claims of breach of a lease and fraud.
On April 28, 2020, after Stich failed to respond to the lawsuit, Mattingly obtained a Default
Judgment against Stich.
The Lease that Mattingly claims Stich breached contained the following language:
The Lessee agrees to pay as additional rent any and all sums which may become
due by reason of the failure of the Lessee to comply with all the covenants of this
lease and any and all damages, costs and expenses including attorneys fees . . .
See, Memorandum and Order, Dec. 13, 2022, at p. 3.
On August 24, 2020, the Jefferson Circuit Court entered judgment in favor of
Mattingly in the amount of $73,458.74, plus costs and attorney’s fees in the amount of
$910.00, plus interest of 6% per annum until paid in full.
On October 23, 2020, Mattingly issued wage and non-wage garnishments to seven
limited liability companies that Stich had an interest in, as well as obtaining charging orders
on Stich’s equity interest in the limited liability companies. Mattingly also filed Judgment
Liens in Jefferson County and Bullitt County on October 29, 2020 and November 6, 2020.
Case 25-03052-jal Doc 13 Filed 05/05/26 Entered 05/05/26 15:07:04 Page 2 of 5

3
On November 4, 2020, Mattingly also served garnishments on Haunt Brother, LLC,
of which Stich was its sole member and officer.
On or around January 29, 2021, Mattingly recovered $4,227.80 from a sheriff’s sale
of Stich’s personal property. 	Other than this recovery, none of the above attempts by
Mattingly to collect on the original Judgment resulted in recovery on Mattingly’s behalf.
Stitch appealed several orders of the Jefferson Circuit Court and posted a
supersedeas bond in the amount of $84,158.94.
The Court adopts Mattingly’s Counterstatement of Relevant Facts and Procedural
History set forth in Mattingly’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
herein. See, DKT No. 12. The Counterstatement accurately sets forth the extraordinary
efforts taken by Mattingly to collect on the default judgment he obtained against Stich from
the date of the Judgment, August 24, 2020 to July 11, 2025, when the Kentucky Court of
Appeals affirmed the June 5, 2024 Order, which granted Mattingly’s Motion to Satisfy the
Original Judgment. 	The trial Court treated the Original Judgment and Supplemental
Judgment as a singular liability. 	Since the bond released to Mattingly in the amount of
$84,158.98 did not cover the full amount of the Original Judgment, Mattingly’s claim
remains secured by the Judgment Liens.
Based on Mattingly’s uncontested Proof of Claim filed in the Debtor’s bankruptcy
case, Case No. 25-32249(1)(13), the total amount of Mattingly’s claim is $106,126.26.
This amount includes the initial Judgment in Case No. 20-CI-002044, in the amount of
$74,368.74 at 6% interest, less $4,227.80 resulting from the execution of personal property
and disgorgement of the bond of $84,158.94, leaving $2,414.93 owed. 	Mattingly’s
judgment was never paid in full. 	While he has a judgment lien of record, this unpaid
Case 25-03052-jal Doc 13 Filed 05/05/26 Entered 05/05/26 15:07:04 Page 3 of 5

4
amount from the Original Judgment, plus the Supplemental Judgment of $96,160.20
totaled $98,575.13, plus accrued interest of $7,551.13, making the total claim $106,126.26.
Thus, Mattingly held a claim reduced to judgment secured by the judgment liens for the
entire time up to the filing of Stich’s bankruptcy.
As stated by Mattingly in his Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment, “a lien is satisfied when the lienholder receives payment sufficient to discharge
the principal, interest, and other costs owing on the obligation that the lien secures, ...” See
Defendant’s Brief, p. 11 citing KRS 365 § 382.365(7). That standard was not met here.
Mattingly correctly states in his brief that the Judgment Liens remain attached to
Stich’s real property interests in Jefferson County and Bullitt County as post judgment
interest continued to accrue. A supersedeas bond is a “covenant to perform the judgment
and to pay all damages and costs.” See Cumberland Security Bank Inc. v. First Southern
National Bank, 661 S.W.3d 748 (Ky. 2023) quoting Wheeler v. Rea, 306 S.W.2d 294, 296
(Ky. 1957). It was Stich’s decision to pursue the appeal which did nothing for his cause
but rather resulted in further delays which increased the amount he owed to Mattingly. For
these reasons, the Judgment Liens remained in place which secured Mattingly’s claims.
CONCLUSION
For all the above reasons, the Motion for Summary Judgment of Plaintiff, Kevin
W. Stich, be and hereby is DENIED.
Dated: May 5, 2026
Case 25-03052-jal Doc 13 Filed 05/05/26 Entered 05/05/26 15:07:04 Page 4 of 5

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
IN RE: 	)
)
KEVIN W. STICH 	) 	Case No. 25-32249(1)(13)
)
Debtor 	)
)
KEVIN W. STICH 	)
)
Plaintiff 	) 	Adv. No. 25-03052
)
v. 	)
)
DALE MATTINGLY 	)
d/b/a DaPAULA PROPERTIES 	)
)
Defendant 	)
ORDER
This matter came before the Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment filed on behalf
of the Plaintiff, Kevin W. Stich against Defendant Dale Mattingly d/b/a DaPaula Properties. The
Court reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s
Motion for Summary Judgment. For the reasons set forth in the Court’s Memorandum-Opinion,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED, that Plaintiff’s Motion
for Summary Judgment, be and hereby is, DENIED.
Dated: May 5, 2026
Case 25-03052-jal Doc 13 Filed 05/05/26 Entered 05/05/26 15:07:04 Page 5 of 5