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.
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 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.
The parties' stipulation was unambiguous, so the court could interpret it without reference to evidence. The debtor surrendered the number and type of livestock required by the stipulation, so the plaintiffs had no right to damages for breach.
The debtor's student loan debts were non-dischargeable. Her monthly day care and vehicle expenses were about to become lower, and she could take steps to collect child support owed to her, so she would have funds available for student loan payments.
The amount of a secured claim is to be determined as of the petition date, so when the debtors and creditors disputed the valuation of two vehicles, the evidence of actual value as of a date nearest to the petition date was the appropriate amount to use.
In an objection to confirmation centered on a dispute over vehicle valuation, the creditor's evidence of value was from a time closer to the petition date than the debtors' evidence was, so it was the more appropriate value to use pursuant to § 502(b).
The outcome of the plaintiff's state-law tort claims against a non-debtor party would not affect the bankruptcy estate. Any recovery would be solely for the benefit of the parties to the lawsuit, so the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction.
The court denied the trustee's motion to sell a vehicle co-owned by debtor and a non-debtor party because the detriment to the co-owner – loss of the vehicle plus liability for the debt after debtor's discharge – outweighed the benefit to the estate.
On an objection to claim, § 502(b) requires the claim amount to be determined as of the petition date. Here, the bank's valuation using the NADA guide from the filing month was more credible than debtors' valuation from closer to the time of the hearing.