Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on their objection to debtor's discharge for allegedly concealing income and understating asset value was denied because they failed to file any supporting evidence as required by local procedural rules.
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.
Because the debtor had a previous case pending but dismissed in the year prior to filing this case, the automatic stay expired 30 days after the petition date. The debtor was unable to establish a change in circumstances to warrant extending the stay.
The court denied a creditor's motion to sue another creditor in an effort to recover property for the estate. The court found that the creditor had no standing to act for the trustee and the proposed litigation would not benefit the bankruptcy estate.
The modified hourly rate charged by counsel to the creditors' committee was reasonable and his work benefitted the estate. However, time spent marking documents should be included in overhead and should not be charged as a professional service.
Under §§ 707(b)(1) and (3)(B), it would be an abuse of the provisions of Chapter 7 to permit debtors to devote more than 82 percent of their income to interest-only mortgage payments for a brand-new house while paying nothing to unsecured creditors.
The plaintiff presented evidence sufficient to establish that the debtor breached his contractual obligations, although such breach does not necessarily establish non-dischargeability. Further evidence was needed on the nature of the conduct.
The judgment creditor was unable to establish grounds for a constructive trust because he did not prove the funds were obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, or an abuse of the parties' relationship, or that he traced the funds into specific assets.
The court allowed debtor to claim a vehicle ownership deduction for his car, which he owned free and clear of liens, because the "applicable monthly expense" deduction under § 707(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I) refers to Local Standards and not actual expenses.
The loss of $850 in monthly income from a second job does not constitute a "special circumstance" under § 707(b)(2)(B)(i) that would rebut the presumption of abuse that arose under the means test. The case should be converted to a Chapter 13.
The debtors, who were operating under a confirmed five-year Chapter 13 plan, wanted to refinance their house and pay off the plan early. The trustee objected on the basis that § 1325(b) requires debtors to make payments for the stated time period in the plan regardless of their ability to make total plan payments in less time. The court overruled the trustee’s objection, stating:
“In a case such as this, the confirmation requirements have already been met. The only change now appears to be the debtors’ desire to make a lump-sum payment of the balance due under the plan to be done with it. There is no indication of bad faith on the part of the debtors. In fact, the debtors are refinancing because their existing variable rate loan has caused their home mortgage payment to increase by $226 during this bankruptcy. There appears to be no good reason to defer ready payments simply to stretch the case out for another three years to its original completion date. Cash in hand is always worth more than the promise of future payments, and there is no evidence that anyone will be harmed by an early completion of the plan.”