Reported at 3 B.R. 597. The court approved of zero-payment Chapter 13 plans over the trustee's objection, ruling that "good faith" does not require a minimum payment schedule. A plan is confirmable if it meets the requirements of section 1325(a)

The district court dismissed these consolidated appeals because the bankruptcy court had subsequently granted the appellant's motion for reconsideration, so these orders were no longer final for purposes of appeal & leave to appeal could be denied

Plaintiff held a valid recorded security interest in a plane under the Federal Aviation Act, but priority is determined under state law. The debtor-defendant took priority by virtue of its possessory artisan's lien for maintenance work it performed

A creditor and its counsel were sanctioned for continuing to garnish debtor's wages. Counsel was unaware of a procedural change requiring a release of garnishment to be filed. However, he was notified twice before finally stopping the garnishment.

Reported at 18 B.R. 633. For purposes of Chapter 13 plan confirmation, the appropriate interest rate on secured claims pursuant to sec. 1325(a)(5)(B)(ii) is the current market rate of interest on a similar type of loan at the time of confirmation

On appeal, the district court dismissed an appeal that was both interlocutory and moot, ruled that the appeal of the dismissal of one debtor's case was moot, and affirmed the denial of another debtor's motion for contempt sanctions against a creditor

Cattle investor's debt to bank could be discharged. His financial statements were not materially misleading, and his conversion of some of the bank's collateral was not willful and malicious because it was necessary for his operating expenses

The debtor appealed the bankruptcy court's order granting relief from the automatic stay to a creditor. The appeal was dismissed because the debtor failed to follow local procedural rules and diligently prosecute it

Reported at 20 B.R. 446. Debtors' efforts to avoid the fixing of a lien – after discharge had been entered and after the creditor had replevined its collateral – were too late. They should have raised the issue as a defense to the replevin action