A bankruptcy judge has the authority to impose an order of civil contempt, if due process is followed. In this case, the district court vacated and remanded a contempt order because the bankruptcy court order didn't state a factual basis for its findings

Reported at 23 B.R. 130. Debtors purchased household items on a revolving charge account. The seller retained a purchase-money security interest in each item until it was paid for, so the debtors could not avoid the seller's lien under section 522

Court granted extension of time for creditor's lawyer to file a complaint to determine dischargeability of certain debts, finding excusable neglect under Rule 906 where creditor's attorney was away from work for one month and fell behind on his workload

Reported at 22 B.R. 934. The Chapter 7 trustee knowingly abandoned scheduled property of the estate. The abandonment was thereafter irrevocable, despite the fact that the property turned out to be more valuable than the trustee had anticipated

Debtors spent medical insurance proceeds on household and personal expenses rather than paying the health-care provider. Court found no fiduciary relationship or willful and malicious conduct by the debtors, so the debt was dischargeable

Chapter 11 debtor filed adversary proceeding against MUD, asking court to set a reasonable amount for a utility deposit under section 366. Because of debtor's prior good payment record & MUD's ability to monitor the account, the court set deposit at $400

Debt to corporation and other shareholders is non-dischargeable under section 523(a)(4) because debtors breached fiduciary duty and misappropriated corp. assets. Also non-dischargeable under section 523(a)(6), as debtors acted with intent to cause injury

The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling that the creditor car dealer's interest was adequately protected, there was equity in the vehicle, and it was necessary to the reorganization, so no cause existed to grant relief from the stay

Reported at 5 B.R. 346. Debtor brought this action under section 722 to redeem her car. The vehicle's value was disputed. The court ruled that the proper valuation date for redemption purposes is the date of the redemption proceeding, in most situations

District court affirmed the confirmation of a creditor's liquidating plan over the objection of the debtor-farmer, ruling that nothing in section 1123(b)(4) protects farmers from liquidation, particularly when the debtor didn't file its own plan