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).

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.