Debtor's conduct in delivering a check to plaintiff and asking plaintiff to hold it for three days while debtor attempted to obtain a loan may have been "unduly optimistic" but does not disclose that debtor acted with the intent to defraud plaintiff

Appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because bankruptcy court order was not a final order

In accordance with In re Terry, 630 F.2d 634 (8th Cir. 1980), confirmation of debtor's Chapter 13 plan was denied where the plan proposed no payments to unsecured creditors and the entire amount of the monthly payments appeared to be for attorney's fees

Court found for debtor-defendant regarding dischargeability. The court held that the debtor did not use false financial statements to obtain loans, nor did she willfully and maliciously convert the collateral (a car) by not obtaining title in her name

Debt to bank on two loans was held to be non-dischargeable because the debtor, intending to deceive the bank into making the loans, had submitted written financial statements containing materially misleading information, upon which the bank relied

Reported at 6 B.R. 899. A debtor who wants to redeem property should pay the creditor the replacement value of the collateral. Replacement value generally equals the retail value of the item less costs such as dealer overhead, sales commissions, & profit

Reported at 47 B.R. 193. In a dispute between two unsecured creditors, one of which held a capital debenture from the debtor to secure a loan made to the debtor's sole shareholder, the court declined to order subordination of the debenture-holder's claim

The court denied confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan because it proposed less-than-full payment to a class of unsecured creditors while reserving to current equity security-holders the exclusive right to purchase stock in the reorganized corporation

The court allowed the debtor to dismiss his case because his only debt was a potential debt arising from a car accident, and no lawsuit regarding the accident had yet been filed. Therefore, the debt was not provable and there was nothing to be discharged

The district court affirmed an order denying stay relief under § 362(b)(4) for the State to go forward with the damages portion of a Consumer Protection Act lawsuit. This was ruled to be outside the scope of the "police or regulatory power" stay exemption