The court denied without prejudice a motion to compel production of documents, finding that the documents requested were covered by the attorney-client and work product privileges. This lawsuit is a contract dispute about insurance coverage. The defendant wants to see emails sent between non-attorney employees of the plaintiff concerning coverage for the loss at issue, but those emails are privileged because they discuss the advice and opinions of legal counsel.

After a trial on the debtor’s objection to the claim filed by her ex-husband, the court ruled the debtor should receive credit for alimony and property settlement payments made directly to the creditor.

On the Chapter 13 trustee’s objection to exemptions – particularly to the debtor’s use of the Schedule C check box for “100% of fair market value, up to any applicable statutory limit” – the court ruled:

The court denied a creditor’s motion to extend the deadline to file a complaint objecting to the debtors’ discharge or to determine the dischargeability of debts. The court declined to equitably toll the deadline because the creditor’s counsel did not act diligently to preserve the creditor’s rights, instead waiting until the afternoon of the last day to contact debtors’ counsel about extending the deadline, then encountering technical difficulties in attempting to file the agreed-upon motion.

The debtor and his parents filed separate adversary complaints seeking to subordinate or disallow the claims of a creditor and to rescind or reform deeds of trust in which that creditor is beneficiary. After a trial on the complaints, the court ruled that because the deeds of trust from the debtor’s parents contain a cross-collateralization clause not within the intent of the parties, the plaintiffs’ claims for reformation are partially granted to remove the clause.

The bankruptcy court granted the debtor’s motion to avoid a lien that impaired his homestead exemption under § 522 “[b]ecause the debtor is allowed to claim a homestead in his one-half interest in property, and because there is no evidence or presumption his non-filing spouse consented to a homestead in her one-half interest.” After analyzing the 2011 Nebraska bankruptcy decision of In re Pedersen and the cases cited therein, the court distinguished it from the present case because Pedersen

After extensively reviewing the history of Nebraska’s homestead law, the bankruptcy court held that a married couple may claim only a single homestead exemption in one parcel of property.

After a trial, the court sustained the debtors’ objection to a claim because there was no underlying basis for the debt. The creditor argued it was on account of a breach of contract, but he had no separate judgment on that basis, nor did he plead it in the associated adversary complaint he filed.

The court overruled an objection to a claim of exemptions under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1552(1).

The bankruptcy court denied a debtor’s objection to the claim of a creditor asserting an attorney’s lien in real estate awarded to her in divorce proceedings. The court ruled that, under Nebraska law, although an attorney does not have a general or possessory attorney’s lien against a client’s real estate, an attorney’s charging lien can attach to real estate that is the subject of and recovered in an action.