The court allowed debtor to claim a vehicle ownership deduction for his car, which he owned free and clear of liens, because the "applicable monthly expense" deduction under § 707(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I) refers to Local Standards and not actual expenses.
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 loss of $850 in monthly income from a second job does not constitute a "special circumstance" under § 707(b)(2)(B)(i) that would rebut the presumption of abuse that arose under the means test. The case should be converted to a Chapter 13.
The debtors, who were operating under a confirmed five-year Chapter 13 plan, wanted to refinance their house and pay off the plan early. The trustee objected on the basis that § 1325(b) requires debtors to make payments for the stated time period in the plan regardless of their ability to make total plan payments in less time. The court overruled the trustee’s objection, stating:
“In a case such as this, the confirmation requirements have already been met. The only change now appears to be the debtors’ desire to make a lump-sum payment of the balance due under the plan to be done with it. There is no indication of bad faith on the part of the debtors. In fact, the debtors are refinancing because their existing variable rate loan has caused their home mortgage payment to increase by $226 during this bankruptcy. There appears to be no good reason to defer ready payments simply to stretch the case out for another three years to its original completion date. Cash in hand is always worth more than the promise of future payments, and there is no evidence that anyone will be harmed by an early completion of the plan.”
The appropriate valuation of the debtors' vehicle for purposes of Wells Fargo's proof of claim was the replacement value, which included a deduction from the fair market retail value for damage caused by ordinary wear and tear.
To avoid foreclosure, the debtors filed multiple bankruptcies – some pending simultaneously – which constituted efforts to hinder & delay the creditor. The court granted relief under § 362(d)(4),
Published at 370 B.R. 812. The Chapter 13 discharge prohibition period introduced by BAPCPA in § 1328(f) and directed at serial bankruptcy filings begins to run on the date the previous case was filed, rather than on the date the discharge was entered.
The Chapter 7 trustee was not estopped from objecting to the debtor's amended claim of exemption, based on new case law in the jurisdiction, despite having mistakenly encouraged the debtor at the § 341 meeting to file an amended exemption claim.
The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that the shareholders' sale of debtor's stock in the context of a leveraged buyout conducted through a bank escrow agent constituted a "settlement payment" for purposes of § 546(e) and could not be avoided by the trustee or the DIP as a fraudulent transfer.
Reported at 370 B.R. 215. The state's attempt to recoup the pre-petition overpayment of unemployment benefits from benefits payable to the debtor post-petition did not arise from the same transaction and therefore violated the automatic stay.
Published at 370 B.R. 215. The state's attempt to recoup the pre-petition overpayment of unemployment benefits from benefits payable to the debtor post-petition did not arise from the same transaction and therefore violated the automatic stay.