Under Coop v. Frederickson (In re Frederickson), 545 F.3d 652 (8th Cir. 2008), the means test and Schedules I & J are relevant in calculating projected disposable income, but the court must consider how much a debtor can really afford to pay into a plan.
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.
The debtor's motion for summary judgment was denied because there were factual issues on the creditor's §§ 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6) causes of action. The debtor's motion to strike certain evidence was denied because foundation had been laid.
Court denied motion to reconsider the fair rental value determination and allowed administrative expense claim for the total amount of rent, real estate taxes, insurance, and utilities owed by the trustee for the post-petition use of the premises.
The court granted creditors' motion to appoint a Chapter 11 trustee due to mismanagement of the estate, lack of progress in reorganizing, failure to timely file reports, and lack of confidence in the debtors' ability to protect creditors' interests.
Trustee could not use the turnover statute to recover funds the debtor inherited and spent during the pendency of the case, but the court made clear that any future distributions were property of the bankruptcy estate and should be paid to the trustee.
At trial, the creditor was unable to establish under § 523(a)(2)(A) that the debtor's statements about his intention to pay his debt were misrepresentations, or that the creditor relied on the statements to its detriment, so the debt was discharged.
The divorcing debtors were joint tenants in their residence at the time it was sold. Accordingly, they could claim a homestead exemption in the total amount of the proceeds, even though the proceeds were divided between them and disbursed separately.
A UCC financing statement that did not appear under the borrower's legal name in a standard search of the Nebraska Secretary of State's records was "seriously misleading" under Revised Article 9 and was insufficient to perfect the security interest.
Because the debtor was "below-median," the court analyzed his Schedules I and J and determined that he had sufficient disposable income to pay all claims in full through the plan. Therefore, the court denied his proposal to make a lump-sum payment.
The court granted summary judgment to a secured creditor in an adversary proceeding brought by a pro se plaintiff to enforce a state-court judgment he held against the debtors. The defendant lender held perfected security interests in the debtors’ assets. The plaintiff did not challenge the validity and priority of the lender’s security interests, but argued the lender held the collateral in trust for the benefit of the plaintiff. Because there was no evidence the lender’s security interests were the product of fraud, misrepresentation, or an abuse of an influential or confidential relationship, this claim failed. Likewise, the plaintiff presented no evidence of any transfer to the lender that should be set aside, nor did the plaintiff put forth any authority to support his argument that by failing to promptly exercise its foreclosure rights, the lender participated in a civil conspiracy. Because there was no genuine issue of material fact for trial, summary judgment was warranted.