A landlord is entitled to an administrative expense claim for the trustee's use of the property to store items, even post-rejection. The costs of readying the premises to re-let are normal breach of contract damages, not administrative expenses.

The court denied debtor's motion to convert from Chapter 7 to Chapter 13 because he could not fund a plan, had no equity in the property he was trying to save, would face claims litigation, & was unlikely to reorganize. Conversion would have been futile.

This adversary proceeding to identify and require turnover of certain property alleged to be property of the estate is a core proceeding created by Title 11. It should not be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Stern v. Marshall.

The parties' divorce decree ordered the debtor to pay a sum certain to his former spouse "to equalize the marital estate." The obligation was a property settlement payment and not a domestic support obligation entitled to priority under the Code.

Although the debtor did not sign a promissory note for a loan from her in-laws, she still could be liable on the debt. A trial was necessary to determine the nature of the transfer (whether it was a loan or a gift) and the validity of the in-laws' claim.

Service on an insured depository institution may be addressed to a corporate officer by title, rather than by name. If the creditor has filed a proof of claim and designated a mailing address at which to receive notice, debtor should use that address.

The debt owed to debtor's former spouse as part of the parties' divorce decree was not a domestic support obligation and didn't need to be treated as such in the debtor's plan. The plan was a good-faith effort by the debtor to satisfy creditors' claims.

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.

A state-court judgment that the debtor misappropriated funds did not make a finding of fraud. Rather, the debtor felt she was entitled to the money, so there could not have been any fraudulent intent. The elements of § 523(a)(4) were not established.

The court denied debtors' motion to strip off a lien on their home. They had refinanced for more than the home's purchase price, so the additional funds on the second lien could not take "purchase money security interest" priority over the senior lien.