Reported at 22 B.R. 363. Debtors' attempt to sever & modify the portion of a claim secured by personal property from the portion secured by a mortgage runs afoul of sec. 1325(a)(5) because the distribution would be less than the claim's allowed amount
You are here
Opinions
United States Courts Opinions (USCOURTS) collection is a collaborative effort between the U.S. Government Publishing Office (GPO) and the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) to provide public access to opinions from selected United States appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts.
The District of Nebraska offers a database of opinions for the years 1997 to current, listed by year and judge. For a more detailed search, enter the keyword or case number in the search box above.
Debtor's conduct in delivering a check to plaintiff and asking plaintiff to hold it for three days while debtor attempted to obtain a loan may have been "unduly optimistic" but does not disclose that debtor acted with the intent to defraud plaintiff
Reported at 22 B.R. 356. A creditor who held debtor's property pre-petition pursuant to a pre-judgment attachment wasn't entitled to admin. expenses under sec. 543 for doing so, as creditor was not a trustee, receiver, agent or otherwise a "custodian"
Debtors spent medical insurance proceeds on household and personal expenses rather than paying the health-care provider. Court found no fiduciary relationship or willful and malicious conduct by the debtors, so the debt was dischargeable
Per local rule, a sec. 727 obj. to discharge couldn't be withdrawn w/o an affidavit that debtor hadn't offered payment to make the obj. go away. Mr. Novotny, who had no attorney & didn't sign the affidavit, was given addn'l time to consider the settlement
Reported at 22 B.R. 37. Section 1325(a)(4)'s reference to liquidation "on such date" means the petition date. Thus, debtors' proposed plan modification based on current lack of assets fails because debtors had non-exempt assets on the petition date
Reported at 22 B.R. 38. A debtor who causes a car accident when driving while intoxicated is negligent, but absent evidence of his deliberate intent to cause harm, has not committed a willful and malicious injury under section 523(a)(6)
Reported at 22 B.R. 36. The court granted a motion to dismiss the bankruptcy case filed by a creditor who challenged the debtor’s eligibility for Chapter 13 based on the amount of debt. The debtor argued that the amount of his debt to the creditor was in dispute and should be excluded from the computation of the total unsecured debt in determining eligibility. The court agreed with the creditor’s interpretation of § 109(e) and concluded that only contingent or unliquidated claims are to be excluded from the claims to be considered in determining eligibility for Chapter 13 and disputed claims are not excluded if they are noncontingent and liquidated, as here.
The court denied the fee application by debtor's counsel because it was filed late. Local rules required such fee applications to be filed prior to notice of the final meeting of creditors; counsel in this case had no explanation for the delay