The third lien on debtor's residence was devoid of equity and wholly unsecured under 11 U.S.C. § 506(a) and could be stripped off in her Chapter 13 case. The lender did not demonstrate the existence of any factual issue, as it did not respond to the motion.
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 Chapter 13 attorney was awarded supplemental fees, over and above the "no look" amount approved by the court, as compensation for his post-confirmation efforts to obtain plan payment suspensions to keep the case from being dismissed.
The court denied the debtor's motion to avoid a judgment lien that he alleged impaired his homestead exemption because the debtor did not provide any evidence to the court that he was entitled to claim a homestead exemption.
The means test calculation showed a significant amount of disposable income as a result of the debtor's wife's contributions toward household expenses, so a presumption of abuse arose under § 707(b)(2) and the case should be converted or dismissed.
Debtors cannot use the plan modification process to alter the terms of a stipulation they entered into as a result of their prior mortgage default during the course of their bankruptcy proceeding. Such stipulations should be strictly enforced.
Summary judgment was denied on the non-dischargeability of a debt under § 523(a)(2)(A) because there was a factual dispute as to whether the debtor led a materials supplier to believe he had secured bank financing with which to pay off his open account.
Summary judgment was denied on a § 523(a)(2)(A) claim based on a state court default judgment because a factual issue existed as to the debtor's intent to deceive. The plaintiff also needed to pierce the corporate veil to reach the individual debtor.
On reconsideration, summary judgment was granted in the defendant's favor, holding that pre- and post-petition house payments were not avoidable transfers. The only issue for trial was the debtor's transfer of interests in marketable securities.
The court ruled that the debtor had no standing to move to strike pleadings in an adversary case in which he was an intervenor. The allegations of the complaint were not directed at the debtor, nor was any affirmative relief requested with regard to him.
The bank's lien couldn't be avoided because its continued possession of the security documents with the vehicle's certificate of origin – necessary to obtain a certificate of title – perfected its lien from and after the date of the vehicle purchase.