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 was a mental health provider who pleaded guilty to theft by unlawful taking for overbilling Medicaid. The state argued that the debt resulting from the overpayments was non-dischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A). The bankruptcy court reviewed the collateral estoppel effect of the criminal conviction, in addition to the alleged overpayments for which there was no criminal or administrative ruling. The court found that the elements of the criminal conviction met the requirements of § 523(a)(2)(A) so that portion of the debt was excepted from discharge. As to the other overpayments, the court found that a trial was necessary in order to make factual findings regarding the debtor’s intent. If the state were to prevail, it would be entitled to actual and treble damages, as well as costs and attorneys fees, and those amounts would be non-dischargeable.
The court denied confirmation of the debtors’ Chapter 13 plan, on precedent from the 8th Circuit that “projected disposable income” indicates a mandate to the bankruptcy court to make a reality-based determination of how much a debtor can afford to pay. In this case, the court found “that Debtors can afford to pay substantially more than they propose to pay pursuant to their plan. Specifically, retention of a boat and travel trailer in which Debtors have little or no equity, and payment to the creditors secured thereby of more than $31,000.00 over the course of the plan, is not reasonably necessary for the maintenance or support of Debtors.” While the means test of § 707(b)(2) appears to authorize the deduction of secured debt payments when determining amounts reasonably necessary to be expended, the means test calculation is merely a starting point for determining projected disposable income. Under the reality-based determination of the debtors’ ability to pay, “it is clear that the amounts paid for a boat and travel trailer used for recreational purposes are not reasonably necessary and, therefore, those amounts should be made available to unsecured creditors under the plan.”
Under Coop v. Frederickson (In re Frederickson), 545 F.3d 652 (8th Cir. 2008), the means test and Schedules I & J are relevant in calculating projected disposable income, but the court must consider how much a debtor can really afford to pay into a plan.
The debtor's motion for summary judgment was denied because there were factual issues on the creditor's §§ 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(6) causes of action. The debtor's motion to strike certain evidence was denied because foundation had been laid.
Court denied motion to reconsider the fair rental value determination and allowed administrative expense claim for the total amount of rent, real estate taxes, insurance, and utilities owed by the trustee for the post-petition use of the premises.
The court granted creditors' motion to appoint a Chapter 11 trustee due to mismanagement of the estate, lack of progress in reorganizing, failure to timely file reports, and lack of confidence in the debtors' ability to protect creditors' interests.
Trustee could not use the turnover statute to recover funds the debtor inherited and spent during the pendency of the case, but the court made clear that any future distributions were property of the bankruptcy estate and should be paid to the trustee.