Debtors inherited $468,000 and moved to modify their Ch. 13 plan to repay creditors a $2,800 lump-sum while leaving $155,699 in unsecured debt unpaid. The motion was denied because, although proposed plan satisfied Forbes, it violated good faith.

This is essentially a collection action by the bankruptcy trustee. It is not a core proceeding, and under Stern v. Marshall, the bankruptcy court lacks constitutional authority to enter judgment on it, so it should be referred to the district court.

The debtor signed commercial guaranties of the obligations of two limited liability companies of which she was a member/owner. The guaranties were absolute, unconditional, and non-contingent, bringing the debt total above the Chapter 13 limit.

Defendant filed a jury demand with its answer and counterclaim. By filing a counterclaim seeking damages from the bankruptcy estate, the defendant brought itself within the court's equitable jurisdiction and waived its right to a jury trial.

An unsecured junior lien on the debtor's residential real estate may be avoided after the debtor completes Chapter 13 plan payments. The case law in the Eighth Circuit, interpreting Nobelman, permits wholly unsecured liens to be stripped off.

The debtor's objection to the priority domestic support obligation claim of his former spouse was denied because he had stipulated, to obtain confirmation of his plan, that the claim was in fact a priority claim. A confirmed plan is res judicata.

The fees owed to the law firm that represented the debtor in his pre-petition divorce were excepted from discharge because of the debtor's false representations in agreeing – but failing – to endorse a check and turn the proceeds over to the law firm.

The garnishment of debtor's pay couldn't be avoided as a preference because the amount didn't meet § 547(c)(8)'s monetary threshold regardless of whether the transfer occurred on the date wages were earned or the date they were paid to the creditor.

The bankruptcy trustee was entitled to summary judgment on a receivable listed in the debtor's schedules as owed by a related company. The defendant did not provide any evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the debt's validity.

Post-divorce debt incurred by the debtor on a jointly owned credit card account was non-dischargeable because it was subject to the hold-harmless clause of the parties' decree and as such was a domestic support obligation under § 523(a)(15).