In issuing a written opinion to deny the plaintiffs' motion for default judgment, the court seeks to provide guidance to practitioners with regard to unambiguously identifying entity defendants and accomplishing effective service of process. A defendant should be described by its proper name, type of entity, and state of organization so the appropriate party is readily identifiable. Specific identification also helps in determining how to properly serve the defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7004.

The bankruptcy court granted the creditors' application for an administrative expense claim for damages resulting from the debtor's breach of a lease she had assumed pursuant to her Chapter 13 plan. Following In re Masek, 301 B.R. 336 (Bankr. D. Neb. 2003), the court found the post-assumption breach gave rise to an administrative expense claim rather than a general unsecured claim.

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.

Summary judgment was granted to creditors whose claims were based on a stock sale agreement and promissory notes from the debtor. Res judicata prevented the debtor from changing his position on liability based on the outcome of the creditors' dispute with a co-debtor on similar claims.

After hearing testimony from the debtors about their failure to comply with a creditor's discovery requests, the court granted the creditor's motion for summary judgment and awarded attorney fees as sanctions. Having found the debtors' explanations of the whereabouts of the collateral in question to be evasive and less than credible, the court also denied them a discharge.

A default judgment entered against the debtor in state court on breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, and unjust enrichment causes of action established the elements necessary for the bankruptcy court to find the debt non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).

The court overruled the debtor's objection to the lender's claims on two grounds: (1) judicial estoppel does not bar a creditor from amending its claim to correct the calculation of the balance due on the petition date, and (2) long-standing legal authority allows a creditor to assert a claim for the full amount of the debt owed, without deducting amounts recovered from third parties. "The confirmed plan is not a recovery or payment in full. Instead, it is a promise to pay.

The court denied the debtor's motion challenging the court's jurisdiction over an adversary proceeding seeking denial of the debtor's Chapter 11 discharge. Dischargeability is a core proceeding over which the bankruptcy court has jurisdiction. It is also an action in equity, so the debtor is not entitled to a jury trial in an Article III court.

The court sustained an unsecured creditor's objection to the debtor's plan because a class of allegedly impaired creditors who voted to accept the plan had not filed a proof of claim, so their claim had not "been allowed under § 502" as required to vote on the plan by § 1126(a). Because this issue was dispositive, the court did not reach the parties' argument concerning the applicability of the absolute priority rule to an individual debtor.

Because factual issues exist regarding elements of the denial-of-discharge causes of action, particularly as to the debtor's intent in transferring the asset in question, summary judgment was denied with the matter to be set for trial.