Feedlot lessor claimed a statutory lien for services performed upon personal property in corn left on its premises by the debtor. Regardless of the validity of such a lien, it did not have U.C.C. priority over the debtor's lender's security interest.
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 inherited $468,000 and moved to modify their Ch. 13 plan to repay creditors a $2,800 lump-sum while leaving $155,699 in unsecured debt unpaid. The motion was denied because, although proposed plan satisfied Forbes, it violated good faith.
The debtors' second motion to assume various farm leases was untimely filed three days after the statutory 120-day deadline in § 365(d)(4), so even if the estate were to benefit, the court could not grant an extension of time to perform the assumption.
Court granted the dismissal of the case for cause because there has been no income generated by debtor and the deposits that are shown in the operating statements are insignificant with regard to the amount which will be necessary to pay the creditor.
The court denied the debtor's former wife's objection to confirmation concerning personal property that allegedly was awarded to her in the dissolution decree. The ownership of the property was unclear and should be determined by the state court.
The court disqualified debtor's ex-husband's attorneys because one member of the firm had worked for a firm representing debtor during the parties' divorce. Counsel had a conflict of interest because the ex-husband's claims arose from the divorce.
The court denied the debtor-defendant’s motion for reconsideration of an order finding that the debtor owed the plaintiffs more than $3.5 million and the debt was non-dischargeable under § 523(a)(4) and (a)(6). The motion to reconsider was denied because it was untimely and because the evidence was insufficient to support the debtor-defendant’s allegations of fraud on the court.
The court granted the plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, finding that the information requested was relevant to whether the debtor listed all of his assets in his bankruptcy schedules. The court also ruled that information as to the source of the legal fees paid to the debtor’s attorney was relevant because the funds used may have been property of the bankruptcy estate. Such information is not privileged.
The court ordered debtor to comply with discovery requests concerning his business, his assets, and the source of funds used to pay his counsel, which was not privileged information. The debtor's failure to respond could subject him to sanctions.
Under the totality of the circumstances, granting the debtors relief under Chapter 7 would be an abuse because they could significantly reduce their expenses without depriving themselves of necessities and thereby make payments to unsecureds.