The debtor filed this adversary proceeding to discharge student loan debt. After negotiating with the holder of the student loans, she executed a promissory note for a consolidated income-contingent student loan. She subsequently realized that she had misunderstood the terms of the loan, believing that she was not required to make payments when she was unemployed and had no income. However, she learned that the repayment amount was based on her total family income, so – because her husband was earning income – she was expected to make monthly payments.

The court granted the Chapter 12 debtors’ motions to sell property in the ordinary course of business and to use cash collateral of $22,000, finding that the objecting secured creditor was protected by an equity cushion of $178,000. The court also directed the debtors to obtain hazard insurance to protect the collateral for the benefit of the bankruptcy estate and the secured creditor.

The court granted the Chapter 12 debtors’ motions to sell property in the ordinary course of business and to use cash collateral of $22,000, finding that the objecting secured creditor was protected by an equity cushion of $178,000. The court also directed the debtors to obtain hazard insurance to protect the collateral for the benefit of the bankruptcy estate and the secured creditor.

The court denied the debtor’s application for unclaimed funds deposited by the Chapter 7 trustee with the court and representing uncashed dividend checks. The court ruled that the funds nevertheless belonged to the creditors and should not be distributed to the debtor or its successor.

In an adversary proceeding in which the sole issue was whether the county had “assessed” liability for personal property taxes to the debtor, the county sought to amend its response to a request for admission because, while the response as given was a true statement, its format was informal and did not constitute a statutory certificate of assessment.

In a dispute over competing rights to the debtor’s accounts receivable, the court granted partial summary judgment to the lender holding perfected pre-petition security interests in inventory, accounts, equipment, and other collateral. The other claimants to the accounts receivable were the multi-employer pension and welfare benefit plans representing the debtor’s employees.

After a trial, the court excepted from discharge a debt to the debtor’s former wife arising from her payment of a marital debt assigned to him in the parties’ divorce. She established that it was a non-support debt that fell within the ambit of § 523(a)(15), and the burden shifted to the debtor to prove that he did not have the ability to pay or that the benefit to him of a discharge would be greater than the detriment to his former wife. Financial records indicated the debtor could pay at least a nominal amount each month to his former wife.

The court granted summary judgment to the lender holding a lien on the debtor’s vehicle when the Chapter 13 trustee sought to avoid that lien. The issue was whether the lender’s security interest was properly perfected within 20 days of the debtor taking possession of the vehicle. The debtor purchased the leased vehicle on Dec. 30, 2003, the dealership received the certificate of title from the lease financing company on Jan. 8, 2004; the debtor signed the odometer certification sometime thereafter; and the new certificate of title was issued on Jan. 26, 2004.

Reported at 22 B.R. 36. The court granted a motion to dismiss the bankruptcy case filed by a creditor who challenged the debtor’s eligibility for Chapter 13 based on the amount of debt. The debtor argued that the amount of his debt to the creditor was in dispute and should be excluded from the computation of the total unsecured debt in determining eligibility.

The debtor was a mental health provider who pleaded guilty to theft by unlawful taking for overbilling Medicaid. The state argued that the debt resulting from the overpayments was non-dischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A). The bankruptcy court reviewed the collateral estoppel effect of the criminal conviction, in addition to the alleged overpayments for which there was no criminal or administrative ruling. The court found that the elements of the criminal conviction met the requirements of § 523(a)(2)(A) so that portion of the debt was excepted from discharge.