Because the separated debtor still owned the house in joint tenancy, he could claim a homestead exemption. The amount of equity was less than the value of the exemption, so there was nothing for the creditor's lien to attach to and it should be avoided.

The confirmed plan in a prior case materially modified the rights of a tax sale certificate holder and transformed a non-recourse obligation into a contractual payment obligation.  That plan is res judicata as to the creditor's claim in this case.

Summary judgment could not be granted on the creditor's fraudulent transfer cause of action because factual issues existed on whether the transfer for value was substantially contemporaneous and whether the debtors intended to defraud creditors.

The court overruled a plan objection by the debtor's former spouse on the basis that the debts at issue were not priority domestic support obligations. Rather, they were in the nature of property settlement as an allocation of marital debt and assets.

Pursuant to § 511, the rate of interest to be paid on tax claims, including tax sale certificates, is the rate as determined under applicable nonbankruptcy law. In Nebraska, that is the statutory interest rate of 14 percent.

Factual issues precluded summary judgment on a creditor's § 727(a)(2) and (a)(4) claims for the debtors' allegedly fraudulent transfer by granting a deed of trust on the eve of judgment and for deliberately undervaluing their jewelry on Schedule B.

The debtor breached his contract to pay for his mother's retirement care, but he did not commit fraud, breach a fiduciary duty to the retirement home, or make a false oath or account by failing to disclose income, so he was entitled to a discharge.

Regardless of whether Nebraska law would recognize the children of debtor's life partner as the debtor's for homestead purposes, debtor can claim a homestead exemption as head of family because her adult child lives with & depends on her for support.

The debtor's separate non-marital obligation as determined in the parties' divorce decree is non-dischargeable under § 523(a)(15) because the relevant obligation isn't the actual debt but the spousal indemnification provided for in the decree.

The plaintiff presented evidence sufficient to establish that the debtor breached his contractual obligations, although such breach does not necessarily establish non-dischargeability. Further evidence was needed on the nature of the conduct.