The court granted summary judgment to the debtor’s former spouse, finding the debt owed by the debtor to equitably divide the parties’ property pursuant to the divorce decree is excepted from discharge under § 523(a)(15). The non-dischargeable amount includes the attorney’s fees awarded by the state court in connection with a contempt order entered in the plaintiff’s favor when the debtor failed to make an installment payment on the property judgment when due.

After a trial seeking denial of discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727, the court ruled in favor of the debtor. The plaintiff had filed the complaint seeking a declaration that the debtor is a business partner to his non-debtor spouse, who owns a business that buys, breeds, and sells cattle. Because the debtor did not list this alleged partnership interest in his bankruptcy schedules or Statement of Financial Affairs, and declared under oath the schedules as filed were correct, the plaintiff sought to deny him a discharge from his debts under §§ 727(a)(2) and (4).

This adversary proceeding was filed by a creditor holding a judgment in a state-court lawsuit finding that the debtor had committed tortious conversion. The complaint seeks a denial of discharge under § 727(a)(4)(A) because the debtor failed to disclose certain assets in his bankruptcy schedules and at his § 341 meeting, or, alternatively, an exception from discharge based on § 523(a)(4).

The court denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on its § 523(a)(2) claims to except a debt from discharge because factual issues exist as to the debtor’s intent in his statements to the bank and whether the bank justifiably relied on that information.

The debtors, who were operating under a confirmed five-year Chapter 13 plan, wanted to refinance their house and pay off the plan early. The trustee objected on the basis that § 1325(b) requires debtors to make payments for the stated time period in the plan regardless of their ability to make total plan payments in less time. The court overruled the trustee’s objection, stating:

The court granted a creditor’s motion to convert this case from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7, finding cause for conversion in the debtors’ inability to formulate a feasible plan because they were unable to find a buyer for their primary asset. The debtors also failed to file a disclosure statement and plan within the time periods established by the Bankruptcy Code, and paid pre-petition expenses and post-petition professional fees without court order.

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.