The court denied a creditor’s motion for summary judgment in an adversary proceeding seeking to except a debt from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(B). The creditor asserted the debtor intentionally overstated her income when she applied for and obtained a personal loan. The debtor argued that the amount in the loan application was what she reasonably expected to earn based on previous years’ income.

The court granted summary judgment to the debtors, ordering that a wholly unsecured junior lien on the debtors’ residential real estate may be avoided after the debtors complete Chapter 13 plan payments.

The court granted summary judgment to a secured creditor in an adversary proceeding brought by a pro se plaintiff to enforce a state-court judgment he held against the debtors. The defendant lender held perfected security interests in the debtors’ assets. The plaintiff did not challenge the validity and priority of the lender’s security interests, but argued the lender held the collateral in trust for the benefit of the plaintiff.

The court denied confirmation of the debtors’ Chapter 13 plan, on precedent from the 8th Circuit that “projected disposable income” indicates a mandate to the bankruptcy court to make a reality-based determination of how much a debtor can afford to pay. In this case, the court found “that Debtors can afford to pay substantially more than they propose to pay pursuant to their plan.

The court denied summary judgment and ordered a trial on a § 523(a)(2)(B) claim after determining that a settlement agreement between the parties in a state-court replevin action did not preclude the bank from pursuing collection of the deficiency remaining on the underlying debt. The terms of the agreement did not indicate the payments received in the settlement would be considered payment in full, nor were there any provisions in the agreement releasing the debtors from further liability.

The court granted a creditor’s motion for relief from stay, finding that because the debtors had a Chapter 13 case pending in another district within the preceding year that was dismissed, the automatic stay in the present case terminated 30 days after the present case was filed, pursuant to § 362(c)(3). The debtors moved to extend the automatic stay, but the motion was filed after the 30-day period had expired, so it was untimely and the creditor was entitled to relief from stay.

The court denied a secured creditor’s motion for relief from stay for cause, including lack of adequate protection. While the debtors may have used some post-petition proceeds of the sale of sod, they retained most of the proceeds, they would be filing a motion for use of cash collateral, and there was no evidence that the collateral value was declining, so the court found it difficult to determine how the creditor was being harmed by temporarily maintaining the status quo.

After a trial, the bankruptcy court found the debt at issue to be dischargeable.
Debtor had borrowed money from the bank and granted a security interest in a vehicle to secure the promissory note. The bank did not obtain the vehicle’s certificate of title or note its lien on the title. The debtor later sold the car without notifying the bank and used the proceeds to pay other business debt. He continued to make payments to the bank for two more years, until succumbing to financial pressures and filing for Chapter 7 relief.

The debtor filed this adversary proceeding alleging breach of contract and fraud against the seller from whom the debtor bought an affordable housing complex. The court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the adversary complaint for failure to state a claim, finding that if the allegations in the complaint are construed in favor of the plaintiff, they are legally sufficient to survive dismissal.

The court denied the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment on the judgment creditor’s complaint that the debt is non-dischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A) and on the debtor’s counterclaim for breach of the automatic stay based on the creditor’s correspondence with the state court. The state-court default judgment did not establish the necessary elements – in particular, false representation and intent – of § 523(a)(2)(A), so it could not on its own support an exception from discharge for this debt and further fact-finding was necessary.