Creditor's objections to discharge under section 727(a)(2), (a)(4), and (a)(5) were denied. Although debtor's sale of cattle to his son was not documented, both parties -- as well as the son's lender -- treated the cattle as belonging to the son.

Attorney fee application filed as administrative expense claim was disallowed. Pre-petition fees were not administrative expenses; post-petition work on federal lawsuit did not benefit estate; and attorney lien filed post-petition violated automatic stay

Opinion deals with trustee's reluctance to challenge a claim, believing that Eighth Circuit precedent in this case precludes him from objecting to the claim. The opinion discusses the differences between claims litigation and discharge objections

Debtor moved, post-discharge, to convert his case from Chapter 7 to Chapter 13 to deal with IRS debt. The court ruled that a trial is necessary to determine debtor's eligibility for Chapter 13 and whether he is acting in good faith in converting the case

Debtor's non-debtor wife, who operated the farm with him, did not sign any loan documents. The court held that she didn't have an ownership interest in non-titled personal property used as collateral, but if she did, she'd acquiesced to its encumbrance

A default judgment entered against the debtor in a previous bankruptcy case cannot be considered res judicata as to dischargeability in the present case because it was only a money judgment and did not address the elements of dischargeability at all.

The court ruled that the county did not hold a first-priority lien for unpaid personal property taxes on proceeds of the sale of debtor's assets because the county had not assessed the debtor for the taxes. The assessment was against a related company.

The debtor's pre-petition renunciation of his interest in a decedent's estate may constitute a fraudulent transfer, as the right to exercise the power to disclaim an inheritance may be a property interest which became part of the bankruptcy estate

Contractor, although an innocent party, had no equitable lien on funds held by the project lender after the project owner defaulted, because there was no legal basis for giving a construction lien claimant priority over the holder of first mortgage