A judgment that purports to avoid the lien interest of the holder of the first deed of trust on the debtors' residence is ineffective against the lienholder when the lienholder is not named as a party to the lawsuit. Even though the debtors thought the mortgage servicer, which they named as a defendant, held an interest in the property, they were aware of the original lender's assignment to the current lienholder and should have provided an opportunity for it to protect its interest.
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.
When the parties divorced, the court ordered the wife to pay $25,000 to the husband to equalize the division of the parties' property. This debt is dischargeable in the wife's Chapter 13 bankruptcy if she successfully completes her plan payments.
The court sustained the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services' objection to confirmation because the department's claim is a domestic support obligation entitled to priority. The claim is for reimbursement of an overpayment of child support to the debtor for a child who was in foster care at the time, and under state law, the right to receive support payments was assigned to the department as reimbursement for the cost of care.
A mortgage holder's notice to a Chapter 13 debtor of post-petition mortgage fees, expenses, and charges, filed pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1, is not an amendment to the creditor's proof of claim and will not be paid under the plan. Rather, it is a notice that the creditor will be seeking repayment of those expenses pursuant to the terms of the loan after the bankruptcy case is over. The debtor may file a motion to determine whether payment of the claimed expenses is required by the loan documents and applicable non-bankruptcy law.
The court denied the plaintiff's motion for default judgment, ruling that, particularly where both parties are unrepresented by counsel, fundamental fairness requires the matter to be set for trial so the court can ascertain whether the elements of the cause of action have been sufficiently established.
The court sustained various objections to the debtor's Chapter 11 plan on grounds of feasibility, lack of good faith, and improper classification of claims. Moreover, there is no precedent for allowing a Chapter 11 debtor who has no legal obligation on a note to modify the terms of that note via his plan.
The court denied the administrative expense applications filed by the debtor's equity interest holders. The applicants were unable to establish that their involvement in the case provided a "substantial contribution" to the estate as required by § 503(b)(3)(D). The equitable "common fund" doctrine did not provide a remedy because the movants did not demonstrate any "dominating reasons of justice" to invoke it.
The court denied the administrative expense applications filed by the debtor's equity interest holders. The applicants were unable to establish that their involvement in the case provided a "substantial contribution" to the estate as required by § 503(b)(3)(D). The equitable "common fund" doctrine did not provide a remedy because the movants did not demonstrate any "dominating reasons of justice" to invoke it.
The court agreed that this adversary proceeding, which had been referred from district court upon a party's bankruptcy filing, should be returned to district court to determine liability for fraud related to the sale of securities. The third-party indemnification and contribution claims against the debtor could be severed and held in abeyance in the bankruptcy court pending the outcome of the district court litigation.
The court agreed that this adversary proceeding, which had been referred from district court upon a party's bankruptcy filing, should be returned to district court to determine liability for fraud related to the sale of securities. The third-party indemnification and contribution claims against the debtor could be severed and held in abeyance in the bankruptcy court pending the outcome of the district court litigation.