Summary judgment was granted to creditor on debtor's attempt to rescind residential deeds of trust given as collateral. The TILA notices were sufficient, despite an isolated typographical error as to the cancellation deadline in one of the notices.

The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that the shareholders' sale of debtor's stock in the context of a leveraged buyout conducted through a bank escrow agent constituted a "settlement payment" for purposes of § 546(e) and could not be avoided by the trustee or the DIP as a fraudulent transfer.

The court denied summary judgment on the debtor-plaintiff's fraudulent transfer complaint because fact questions existed as to the elements of the statute, including whether the property transferred to the defendants was property of the debtor.

Court dismissed DIP's fraudulent transfer claims regarding the business's leveraged buyout because no transfer of debtor's property occurred, and even if it had, the lenders & initial transferee were indispensable parties who couldn't now be added.

Debtor's employee had received statutory maximum $4,000 priority wage claim under 11 U.S.C. section 507(a)(3), but that doesn't preclude him from also making a claim under section 507(a)(4) for his 401(k) contribution.

A state court judgment regarding breach of a lease was entered post-petition against a partnership involving the debtor. The automatic stay does not extend to the partnership, so the judgment is valid and enforceable and can be pursued in state court.

Homestead exemption allowed for debtor who moved into his parents' home to care for his father; and who inherited house after his father passed away. The debtor became head of household when he took over primary responsibility for his father's care.

The debtor lacked sufficient equity in his home to secure any part of the second and third liens on the property. Under Nobelman v. American Savings Bank and In re Sanders, the Chapter 13 plan may modify the lienholder's rights and strip off the liens.

The court permitted the debtors to use part of an exempt annuity to fund their Chapter 12 plan, finding that it would eliminate some interest and rental expenses and increase the plan's feasibility, although it may or may not affect net disposable income