The debtors and two lenders disputed the amount owed on the lenders’ claims. The claims were ultimately determined, along with an amount for administrative expenses. The amounts were final, and debtors’ motion for new trial should have been denied.
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 bank exercised its deed of trust powers and sold real property owned by the debtors after the bankruptcy case had been dismissed and before it was reinstated. There was no evidence of an improper sale, so the buyers were entitled to summary judgment.
Debtor may compromise claims with its insurance companies to use the insurance proceeds to fund a trust for tort claimants. It is in the estate's and claimants' interest to have a single fund available, rather than engaging in piecemeal litigation.
The debtor's objection to the priority domestic support obligation claim of his former spouse was denied because he had stipulated, to obtain confirmation of his plan, that the claim was in fact a priority claim. A confirmed plan is res judicata.
The claim held by debtor's former spouse was not entitled to priority as a domestic support obligation. The monetary judgment awarded to her as part of the dissolution was an equitable division of property and was clearly not in the nature of support.
The court denied the U.S. Trustee's motion to dismiss for abuse because the non-debtor spouse's assets and the couple's vehicles shouldn't be considered, and the debtor's 401(k) contribution was insignificant when compared to unsecured debt.
The lender's motion for stay relief was deferred to allow the debtors to catch up on regular monthly mortgage payments – which the bank was directed to accept without prejudice to its position – as well as any escrow deficiency for taxes and insurance.
The court granted the debtor’s motion to avoid a lien under § 522(f)(1)(A). The debtor’s former spouse held a judgment for the property settlement due to her. The debtor later purchased a residence and filed a Chapter 13 petition. The debtor then moved to avoid the property settlement judgment lien, asserting that it impaired his homestead exemption. The creditor argued that a judgment lien cannot be avoided under § 522(f)(1)(A) unless the debtor held an interest in the property at the time the judgment lien came into existence, relying on Farrey v. Sanderfoot, 500 U.S. 291 (1991). The court distinguished this case from Farrey, noting that under Nebraska law, there are two steps when a judgment exists prior to the acquisition of a property interest: first, title vests in the judgment debtor, and second – and immediately thereafter – the judgment lien fixes. The facts in Farrey were different, in that the lien and the property interest arose simultaneously there because they resulted from the same transaction and the property interest did not exist before the lien fixed. Here, the debtor acquired his property interest first and the property settlement judgment lien immediately attached, and therefore could be avoided.
The debtors' transfers of assets and sale of collateral, without notifying or obtaining permission from the lienholder and without putting the lienholder's name on the checks, was fraudulent and warranted dismissal of the case under § 1208(d).
The debtors own and occupy two adjacent lots and houses. One debtor resides in the second house to care for her father-in-law, although all family members regularly use both houses. The debtors may claim their homestead exemption in the second house.