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.

Creditor's claim for grain stored at the debtor's elevator should be reduced by the net amount recovered on his claim with the Nebraska Public Service Commission (i.e., the amount of his NPSC settlement less the attorney fees incurred to obtain it).

Service of process on the defendant was deficient because it was addressed only to the company. Service on a corporation is to be made on an officer or agent. Service on an insured depository institution is to be made by certified mail on an officer.

The court granted creditors' motion to appoint a Chapter 11 trustee due to mismanagement of the estate, lack of progress in reorganizing, failure to timely file reports, and lack of confidence in the debtors' ability to protect creditors' interests.

The court reduced the amount of compensation awarded to counsel for the debtors because the amount of time billed for certain activities – concerning travel, "emergency" motions, and dealing with the debtors' leases – was unreasonable.

There was no evidence of the debtor's intent to defraud the plaintiff, so the complaint under § 523(a)(2)(A) & (a)(4) and § 727(a)(2)(A) was denied. Absent evidence of fraud, debts arising from contract breaches generally are dischargeable.

At trial, the creditor was unable to establish under § 523(a)(2)(A) that the debtor's statements about his intention to pay his debt were misrepresentations, or that the creditor relied on the statements to its detriment, so the debt was discharged.

The court dismissed the preference cause of action filed by the debtor in possession as untimely. The two-year limitations period in § 546 expires on the second anniversary of the petition filing date, so this complaint was filed two days too late.