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.
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 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.
Debtor's ex-wife sought relief from stay to appeal the divorce, to continue a contempt action and to move against estate property for payment of child support. Court granted the first two motions but said that notice must be given first on final motion.
The debtor's contract with the plaintiff to receive a lump-sum payment in exchange for the transfer of his rights to his monthly military pension payments was not void under statutory anti-assignment provisions concerning military pay.
The court found, on a summary judgment motion, that the debtor's agreement to transfer his rights to future military pension payments in exchange for a lump-sum payment was not void under the anti-assignment provisions of 37 U.S.C. § 701(c).
A state-court judgment that the debtor misappropriated funds did not make a finding of fraud. Rather, the debtor felt she was entitled to the money, so there could not have been any fraudulent intent. The elements of § 523(a)(4) were not established.