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.

Trial was held on debtor's objection to landlord's claim. Court made factual findings that the parties were in fact landlord and tenant, rather than vendor-vendee. Court also found that the landlord was not entitled to a claim for a new heating system.

Because the debtor utilized his 2005 corn crop as feed in his reorganized 2006 farming operation, the corn was an asset "used in the debtor's farming operation" under § 1222(a)(2)(A) and the tax should be treated as an unsecured non-priority claim.

The remedy for a secured creditor who believes the interest rate proposed in a Chapter 13 plan is inadequate is to object to confirmation pursuant to Local Rule 3023-1, rather than to challenge the interest rate through the claims allowance process.

A provision in the parties' divorce decree ordering the debtor to pay certain marital debts owed to third parties and to hold her former spouse harmless thereon constitutes a non-dischargeable obligation under post-BAPCPA 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15).

A judgment was non-dischargeable under § 523(a)(3) because the debtor failed to give proper notice of the bankruptcy to the judgment creditor. Even if the notice had been proper, the debt was excepted from discharge as a defalcation by a fiduciary.

Debtors' landlord did not have a perfected security interest in crops because his financing statement did not sufficiently describe the collateral. His amendment to the U.C.C. financing statement may be a preference if insolvency can be shown.

The creditor's lien on the debtors' real property attached to the proceeds upon the sale of the property. The creditor's amended claim was disallowed to the extent it included an amount for real estate taxes disbursed after the property had been sold.

The purported U.C.C. security interest claimed by the landlord-creditor was invalid because he created it unilaterally. The circumstances did not support the creditor's § 507(a)(4) priority wage claim. He held only general unsecured claims.

Debtors met their burden of proof to show that their proposed classification of unsecured creditors does not run afoul of § 1322(b)(1). The treatment of Great Western Bank's claim relative to other unsecured claims was not unfairly discriminatory.