The court ruled that post-petition capital gains taxes arising from the sale of farm assets used in debtor's farming operation were the type of taxes subject to treatment under 11 U.S.C. § 1222(a)(2)(A) as unsecured claims not entitled to priority.

The debtor's activities did not rise to the level of gross mismanagement or fraud and did not warrant the appointment of a trustee. However, an examiner could be appointed to investigate the debtor, but only if the movants were willing to pay the fees.

The debtor's confirmed Chapter 12 plan was a binding contract and was res judicata as to the amount of the creditor's claim. The debtor couldn't modify the lienholder's rights without first challenging the claim or avoiding the security interest.

A title insurer had standing to pursue a non-dischargeability claim against the debtor for failing to reveal the existence of a judgment lien against property she sold, although the claim is contingent unless and until the insurer pays off the lien.

Plaintiff objected to the discharge of credit card debt on "hold harmless" language in a dissolution decree. The debtor's motion to dismiss the complaint as untimely and for failure to properly allege the elements of a cause of action was denied.

A factual issue existed as to whether Article 9 U.C.C. financing statements were "seriously misleading" when it was unclear whether a records search using debtor's legal name in the filing office's search logic would find the financing statement.

Instruments of encumbrance signed by an officer of the debtor rather than an officer of the debtor's sole member and manager were valid under the LLC Act and could not be avoided by the trustee. The officer was authorized by each entity to act on its beha

Relief from the stay was granted so the parties could take action in state court to address issues regarding conflicts of interest in connection with a trust in which the debtors were beneficiaries and the president of their lender was the trustee.

The refinancing lender's security interest was unperfected because it was not noted on the vehicle's certificate of title until more than 30 days after transfer. Neither earmarking nor contemporaneous exchange for new value were viable defenses.