The court refused to approve a sale of the debtors' real and personal property when it found that the debtors' objection to the claim of a lienholder in the property had been mistakenly granted. The claim and the value of the lien needed to be determined.

The court denied without prejudice a lender's motion for relief. The debtors offered adequate protection and filed a plan, disclosure statement, and exhibits which appeared to rebut the bank's assertion that a confirmable plan was not feasible.

The court overruled the debtors' objection to claim regarding a note they co-signed, finding their defenses of novation, accord and satisfaction, and laches to be inapplicable, but also finding that the lender overstated the amount of the claim.

The court overruled the Chapter 13 trustee's objection and held that a post-petition tax claim under § 1305 is deemed allowed unless an objection other than timeliness is filed. There is no deadline under Rule 3002 for filing a post-petition claim.

The trustee's good-faith objection to debtors' housing expense was overruled, but questions as to the accuracy of Schedules I & J and whether debtors could afford to pay for a boat and camper and still pay unsecured creditors precluded confirmation.

Reported at 379 B.R. 899. Debtors may treat taxes from post-petition sale of farm assets as unsecured, non-priority claims under § 1222(a)(2)(A). The statute plainly refers to taxes arising post-petition, & the intent is to help farmers reorganize.

The reference of an adversary proceeding involving alleged breaches of contract and breaches of fiduciary duty should be withdrawn and the case returned to district court, as its resolution will involve non-debtor parties and non-bankruptcy law.

The court deferred the creditor's motion for relief from stay to allow the debtors to become fully current on post-petition payments and to pay the creditor's costs, within a month. If the debtors were unable to do so, relief would be granted.

The court denied relief from the stay under § 362(d)(2) because there was no evidence of bad faith in the debtor's second bankruptcy filing. The ability to propose a confirmable Chapter 13 plan was questionable, but the debtor would be allowed to try.

The loss of $850 in monthly income from a second job does not constitute a "special circumstance" under § 707(b)(2)(B)(i) that would rebut the presumption of abuse that arose under the means test. The case should be converted to a Chapter 13.