The debtors could avoid a non-possessory, non-purchase-money lien on their vehicle to the extent it impaired the tool of the trade exemption. They couldn't use § 522(f)(1)(B) to protect any part of their personal property exemption, however.

Court denied bank's objection to discharge under § 727(a)(2) and (a)(4) because there was no evidence that the asset transfer at issue occurred within one year prior to the petition date, and because the errors on debtors' schedules were harmless.

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.

The court denied the debtors' attempt to assert "special circumstances" for paying less than their disposable income to their unsecured creditors under the plan, as their actual expenses were less than the applicable national standard deduction.

The court denied a discharge to the debtor under § 727(a)(4)(A) because he completed his schedules with reckless indifference, with several omissions and misstatements, and did not promptly correct them after being made aware of the inaccuracies.

Under Coop v. Frederickson (In re Frederickson), 545 F.3d 652 (8th Cir. 2008), the means test and Schedules I & J are relevant in calculating projected disposable income, but the court must consider how much a debtor can really afford to pay into a plan.

Debtors cannot use the plan modification process to alter the terms of a stipulation they entered into as a result of their prior mortgage default during the course of their bankruptcy proceeding. Such stipulations should be strictly enforced.

An agricultural input supplier's statutory lien was valid but was not timely perfected, so it did not have priority over subsequent lienholders. Thus, the debtors could enroll in Farm Service Agency programs and grant the FSA a first lien on crops.

A state court judgment against the debtor for slander contained sufficient findings to support a summary judgment of non-dischargeability under § 523(a)(6) because the debtor's conduct caused a willful and malicious injury to the plaintiff.

The bankruptcy court ruled that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over a lawsuit between non-debtor parties concerning the defendants' guarantees of certain debt incurred by the debtor, so the case was sent to the federal district court.