This opinion serves as guidance for those dealing with the effect of the automatic stay in state-court family law cases.

The plaintiff filed this adversary proceeding to determine the dischargeability of debts arising out of the parties’ divorce. The debtor-defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings on the basis that a federal court cannot enforce a divorce, alimony, or child-custody decree, and that §§ 523(a)(5) and (a)(15) are self-executing and do not require an adversary proceeding.

The court authorized the Chapter 7 trustee to dissolve the debtors’ LLCs and wind up their business under Nebraska law. The court also ordered the debtors to turn over vehicles belonging to the bankruptcy estate – some of which came into the estate via the avoided transfer of an LLC and its vehicles – and directed the trustee to file a § 363 motion to sell them.

The court denied confirmation of a Subchapter V plan because it did not meet the best interests of creditors test under § 1129(a)(7) by failing to account for the present value of deferred payments to unsecured creditors. The plan also did not correctly calculate projected disposable income under § 1191(c)(2) because it was ambiguous as to whether proposed payments to the owners are for wages, management services, or equity distribution, each of which affects the disposable income calculation.

This adversary proceeding was brought under § 523(a)(2)(A) by an Ohio receiver against certain alleged “net winners” in a Ponzi scheme. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to allege they personally committed fraud.

The bankruptcy court denied the plaintiff’s Rule 52(b) motion to amend its findings of fact and conclusions of law holding that most of the debt owed to her by the defendant is dischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A). The motion to amend did not identify any manifest errors of law or fact; it simply reargued positions the court had already considered and rejected.

The court excepted a portion of the debt owed to a lender under § 523(a)(2)(B) because the bank reasonably relied on the debtor’s written financial statements, one of which the debtor signed with reckless indifference to or in reckless disregard of its accuracy.

The bankruptcy court excepted part of a judgment debt from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A).

The bankruptcy court reiterated that a judgment lien on the debtor’s 50% interest in his house is fully avoided, but the judgment creditor may go to state court for a determination of the extent of the debtor’s interest vis-à-vis his former wife’s interest in the property, which was their marital home.

The court, after a trial, sanctioned the debtor for violating the automatic stay and the court’s turnover orders. The court found the debtor and his son repeatedly interfered with the trustee’s possession of certain real property, the debtor caused post-petition liens to be filed against the real estate, and the debtor withdrew IRA funds outside the scope of a court order authorizing certain withdrawals.