Reported at 62 B.R. 744. When a debtor is not in default pre-petition, a mortgage creditor cannot rely upon post-petition "defaults" to justify perfecting a security interest in rents and profits and obtain an order sequestering such rents and profits
You are here
The District of Nebraska offers a database of opinions for the years 1997 to 2011, listed by year and judge. For a more detailed search, enter the keyword or case number in the search box above.
Subscribe to our opinions RSS feed
Secured lender sought post-petition rents and profits pursuant to an assignment in the security agreement. State law governs, and under Nebraska law, the funds belong to the debtor unless foreclosure has been initiated and a receiver has been appointed
Debtor requested withdrawal of his pension funds and authorized their deposit into his credit union account. The deposit wasn’t an assignment & didn’t run afoul of anti-alienation laws. The credit union could set off the funds against debtor’s loans
Debtor was co-guarantor on a bank loan. The bank could collect from debtor despite settling with the other guarantor & surrendering the promissory note. When the debt is fully paid, the co-guarantor's right to contribution from the debtor will mature
District court reversed the bankruptcy court regarding an alleged preference. The district court said debtors’ pay-off of a debt shortly before bankruptcy was indeed a preference because the creditor – essentially unsecured – received an advantage.
District court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s order finding that the debtor’s brokerage commissions were property of the estate because they had been earned pre-petition, even though the debtor did not receive payment until after the petition date
The court ruled for the defendant, finding that a pre-petition contract for the purchase of assets was not executory and could not be assumed by the Chapter 7 trustee. There were no remaining substantial performance obligations due from either party
District court affirmed the confirmation of a creditor’s liquidating plan over the objection of the debtor-farmer, ruling that nothing in section 1123(b)(4) protects farmers from liquidation, particularly when the debtor didn’t file its own plan
District court vacated the bankruptcy court’s order denying an award of attorneys’ fees, ruling that the bankruptcy court read § 327 too narrowly in requiring prior authorization of debtors’ counsel’s employment before compensation could be allowed
The test of whether a proposed plan offers the indubitable equivalent isn’t whether it offers the same rights as would exist in a Chapter 7 but whether it offers the indubitable equivalent of the party’s rights if no bankruptcy proceeding existed at all