Published at 208 B.R. 470. The property settlement agreement reached as part of the parties' marital dissolution obligated debtor to pay one-half of a loan taken out during the marriage to cover family medical expenses. That obligation is non-dischargeable under section 523(a)(15).
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.
Debtors may use Chapter 13 to discharge debts that would be non-dischargeable in Chapter 7. In this case, although there is no evidence of a lack of good faith in filing the bankruptcy petition or in proposing the plan, the plan as proposed is not feasible
Cause existed under section 362(d)(1) to grant relief from stay to continue with state court replevin action, as debtors had no interest in the cattle and the real dispute was among creditors and intervenor claimants
Debtor may not reclassify a claim in a confirmed plan through a plan modification under section 1329, athough debtor may reduce amount of secured claim by the value of surrendered collateral under 1329(a)(3)
Reported at 213 B.R. 156. The debtor's student loan "first became due" on the day following the expiration of the grace period, so the loan had become due more than five years before the petition date and was therefore dischargeable under § 523(a)(8).
A Texas court's default judgment which gave rise to the creditor's bankruptcy claim had a preclusive effect in the bankruptcy court. The doctrine of res judicata prevented the bankruptcy court from revisiting any of the issues decided in the judgment
Debtor's employee had received statutory maximum $4,000 priority wage claim under 11 U.S.C. section 507(a)(3), but that doesn't preclude him from also making a claim under section 507(a)(4) for his 401(k) contribution.
The monetary limitation of § 507(a)(3) is not a limitation on a claim for employee benefits under § 507(a)(4), so an employee of the debtor could file a claim for a 401(k) contribution after the allowance of his statutory maximum priority wage claim.
Under Nebraska exemption statute which didn't expressly provide for a tool-of-the-trade exemption in vehicles, debtors couldn't exempt vehicles used for transportation to work, although debtor could exempt a truck that he used in his part-time employment
The IRS amended and substantially increased its claim for unpaid unemployment taxes six years after the claims bar date. The IRS offered no justification or excuse for the delay, so the court disallowed the amended claim as untimely filed.