A factual issue existed as to whether Article 9 U.C.C. financing statements were "seriously misleading" when it was unclear whether a records search using debtor's legal name in the filing office's search logic would find the financing statement.
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 court authorized the appointment of an attorney experienced in personal injury litigation as an expert to estimate the value of personal injury claims against the debtor and prepare a non-binding recommendation for bankruptcy purposes only.
The garnishment of debtor's pay couldn't be avoided as a preference because the amount didn't meet § 547(c)(8)'s monetary threshold regardless of whether the transfer occurred on the date wages were earned or the date they were paid to the creditor.
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.
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.