The debtor plaintiff's allegations supporting his subordination cause of action against the bank survived the defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim because the defendant did not specify or explain the purported deficiencies.
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 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.
For the means test, debtor may claim standard housing expense rather than actual expense, and vehicle ownership expense for unencumbered vehicle. 401(k) loan repayment is "additional expense." Reduced overtime pay isn't "special circumstance."
Published at 368 B.R. 850. The debtor, a young single woman with no dependents and two advanced degrees, could make an effort to reduce her monthly expenses enough to make payments on her student loans. Repayment would not create an undue hardship.
Debtor's unauthorized withdrawal of the entire balance of a joint checking account and nearly all of the funds on a line of credit is non-dischargeable as it caused willful and malicious injury to the joint owner and could be considered embezzlement.
A post-petition increase in the value of property of the bankruptcy estate belongs to the estate, so debtor was required to turn over the number of shares of stock he owned on the petition date for the trustee to administer at the stock's current value.
Reported at 393 B.R. 222. The debtor, as trustee of an express trust, was found to have failed to turn over trust assets upon request. Under Eighth Circuit bankruptcy law, that constituted a defalcation of her fiduciary duty and was non-dischargeable.
To avoid foreclosure, the debtors filed multiple bankruptcies – some pending simultaneously – which constituted efforts to hinder & delay the creditor. The court granted relief under § 362(d)(4),
On a creditor's motion to dismiss the case because it had not authorized the filing, the court found a state court order in aid of execution did not give the creditor an ownership interest in the debtor, so the creditor's authorization was unnecessary.
