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.

Under §§ 707(b)(1) and (3)(B), it would be an abuse of the provisions of Chapter 7 to permit debtors to devote more than 82 percent of their income to interest-only mortgage payments for a brand-new house while paying nothing to unsecured creditors.

In an objection to confirmation centered on a dispute over vehicle valuation, the creditor's evidence of value was from a time closer to the petition date than the debtors' evidence was, so it was the more appropriate value to use pursuant to § 502(b).

The court granted debtors' motion to avoid lien because the total of liens and exemption exceeds debtors' interest absent liens, and is avoided by amount of difference. The amount of difference exceeds the lien amount, so the lien is avoided in full.

Published at 370 B.R. 219. The plain language of § 1325(a)(9)'s hanging paragraph indicates that "acquired for the personal use of the debtor" applies only to motor vehicles, and not when the collateral for the debt consists of any other thing of value.

Published at 370 B.R. 215. The state's attempt to recoup the pre-petition overpayment of unemployment benefits from benefits payable to the debtor post-petition did not arise from the same transaction and therefore violated the automatic stay.

Through mutual mistake, a creditor was overpaid on its secured claim. The trustee requested a refund but creditor did not comply. The court ordered the creditor to turn over the funds by a date certain or face monetary sanctions for failing to do so.

The representative of a corporate debtor may invoke his constitutional rights against self-incrimination while appearing at a Rule 2004 examination; therefore, he may not be forced to testify, although negative inferences may be drawn as a result.

An unmarried debtor with no children could claim a homestead exemption as head of a family because he had lived in the house with his mother pre-petition, providing care and support for her, although she no longer resided there on the petition date.