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.

A creditor who was not notified of, and was unaware of, the debtors' bankruptcy received funds garnished from the debtor on a post-petition judgment. He did not have to turn those funds over, but the automatic stay prevents further collection efforts.

The outcome of the plaintiff's state-law tort claims against a non-debtor party would not affect the bankruptcy estate. Any recovery would be solely for the benefit of the parties to the lawsuit, so the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction.

The debtors substantially complied with the terms of a stipulation to use cash collateral, so they should not be penalized for violations that occurred when their son ran the operation, particularly since they have taken steps to rectify the problem.

The court granted relief from stay for cause because a delinquency existed on the promissory notes which would trigger the creditors' right to take action per their loan documents. The court expressed no opinion as to the sufficiency of said actions.

For Sec. 707(b)(2), debtors may claim the local standard housing expense, not actual expense. They may claim vehicle ownership expenses for unencumbered vehicle. 401(k) loan repayment is "additional expense." Reduced OT pay isn't "special circumstance"

On an objection to claim, § 502(b) requires the claim amount to be determined as of the petition date. Here, the bank's valuation using the NADA guide from the filing month was more credible than debtors' valuation from closer to the time of the hearing.

The court did not allow the debtors to claim an exemption in an earned income tax credit that was recovered by the Chapter 7 trustee after they used it to pay down a debt. Such property is potentially exempt unless it has been voluntarily transferred.

The claim held by debtor's former spouse was not entitled to priority as a domestic support obligation. The monetary judgment awarded to her as part of the dissolution was an equitable division of property and was clearly not in the nature of support.