Federal bankruptcy law determines whether a lien may be avoided, so when a debtor moves to avoid a lien on a tool of the trade under § 522(f)(1)(B)(ii), the court must first examine whether the creditor holds a non-possessory, non-purchase money security interest in a tool of the trade as defined by federal law. In this case, the liens on the debtors' vehicles could not be avoided because the vehicles were used solely for commuting to work and therefore were not tools of the trade under the federal definition.

The bankruptcy court recommended to the district court that it deny the debtor-defendant's motion to withdraw the reference of the bankruptcy case and adversary proceeding because the motion was unfounded. The issues raised in the adversary proceeding arise under Title 11 and are clearly within the bankruptcy court's constitutional authority to adjudicate.

The court granted summary judgment and revoked the debtor's Chapter 7 discharge after the U.S. Trustee learned the debtor had obtained a Chapter 7 discharge in another district less than eight years ago and had made false oaths in connection with the present case. The debtor filed the Nebraska case using a different Social Security number, so the previous bankruptcy did not show up on a PACER search.

The court granted summary judgment to a lender who objected to the debtors' attempt to modify  their monthly mortgage payments through their proposed Chapter 13 plan. The debtors argued that the terms of the loan had been modified, but there was no evidence of anything other than a temporary modification. The debtors were given time to file an amended plan to account for the appropriate mortgage payment.

The bankruptcy court found that a debtor's pre-petition disclaimer of an inheritance did not relate back to the date of death to prevent the property from becoming part of the bankruptcy estate. Instead, the disclaimer constituted a transfer and a trial was necessary to determine whether the transfer was made with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors, which would warrant a denial of discharge.

The court denied the debtor's motion to reopen her bankruptcy case for purposes of determining the dischargeability of judgment debt for violations of state deceptive trade practices and consumer protection laws. Bankruptcy Code § 350(b) calls for reopening a case to administer assets or accord relief to the debtor. While resolution of the dischargeability  issue may provide some relief to the debtor, it would not affect the bankruptcy estate or its creditors, which weighs against reopening the case.

An unsecured junior lien on the debtor's residential real estate may be avoided after the debtor completes Chapter 13 plan payments. The case law in the Eighth Circuit, interpreting Nobelman, permits wholly unsecured liens to be stripped off.

After a trial, the court found the debtor's payments on a promissory note were fraudulent and preferential transfers because the note's proceeds were used to purchase an asset held in the debtor's wife's name to put it beyond the reach of his creditors. The purchase of the asset (an interest in a limited liability company managed by the debtor) occurred outside the statute of limitations, so it was not avoidable. Under §§ 550 and 551, the trustee was entitled to recover the value of the note payments. In light of Stern v.

The court prepared findings and recommendations for the district court in a contractual dispute in which one of the defendants was a debtor in a Chapter 11 case arising after the contracts were entered into. The debtor had not included the creditor or the contracts in its bankruptcy and gave no notice to the creditor in time to permit it to protect its rights. Accordingly, the creditor was not bound by the terms of the debtor's confirmed reorganization plan, nor did the plan discharge the debtor's obligation under the contracts.

The court granted summary judgment to a defendant in a lien priority dispute because the plaintiff was unable to show that its lien was prior to the defendant's lien. The defendant's deed of trust liens attached before the plaintiff's construction lien, and the plaintiff provided no proof to support a change in attachment dates based on fraud or estoppel.