The parties' vehicle lease was actually an installment sale/security agreement rather than a true lease. Accordingly, the debtors were entitled to the balance of the proceeds of an insurance check issued when the vehicle was totaled in an accident.

A Chap. 13 projected disposable income calculation should use the amount of actual plan payments to secured creditors, rather than the amount contractually due, as the plan likely alters the amount due & the statute refers to plan's effective date.

The $50 late charge for each day debtors' rent was past due should not have been cumulative; rather, it should have simply been charged per day for each day that any rent remained unpaid between the date of abandonment and the date of bankruptcy filing.

Plan confirmation was denied because the debtor needed to amend to provide for adequate protection payments to begin at confirmation and to clarify that he was surrendering his interest in certain collateral. The Till interest rate was appropriate.

On summary judgment, the court determined priority of creditors' interests; (1) creditor bank, though first to file, had not properly perfected its lien under the U.C.C. and (2) creditor landlord's lien is superior to each creditor bank's interest.

Reported at 385 B.R. 709. Debtor may not renounce and disclaim an inheritance to which she became entitled post-petition because it is property of the bankruptcy estate under § 541(a)(5)(A) and must be preserved for the unsecured creditors' benefit.

A fund transfer between the accounts of two corporations owned by the debtor was intercepted by the lender and applied to a corporate debt. The debtor sued to avoid the transfer, but the court ruled it wasn't a preference as it wasn't debtor's property.

Defendants' Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted must be denied when the movant does not provide a legal or factual explanation of why it believes the complaint fails to state a claim.

The court denied summary judgment on the issue of equitable subordination of the bank's claim because fact questions existed with regard to the bank's intent and whether it engaged in inequitable conduct in its lending relationship with the debtor.

The court dismissed a preference allegation against the defendant creditor because the complaint was not timely filed. The statute of limitations expired on the second anniversary of the petition date, and this complaint was filed two days later.