The bankruptcy court denied confirmation of the debtor’s fourth amended Chapter 13 plan, finding it does not meet the requirements of 11 U.S.C. §§ 1325(a)(1) and (8), 1325(b)(1)(B), 1325(a)(6), and 1325(a)(3). First, the debtor treats retroactively awarded child support as a pre-petition priority arrearage to be paid through the plan, but it actually is a post-petition obligation which must be paid in full before a plan can be confirmed.

The bankruptcy court granted stay relief to a creditor that financed the lease of certain farm equipment to the debtors’ LLC. The creditor had previously obtained relief from the stay in the LLC’s bankruptcy. The court granted relief in the individual debtors’ case because the debtors do not own the equipment and the automatic stay does not reach it.

The bankruptcy court denied a Chapter 7 trustee’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint because the trustee failed to show good cause under Rule 16(b).

The bankruptcy court disallowed a contingent claim for contribution from the debtor on a state court judgment for which the claimant and the debtor are both liable, triggering 11 U.S.C. § 502(e)(1)(B). The claimant concedes each element of § 502(e)(1)(B). The statute mandates disallowance.

The bankruptcy court temporarily allowed a creditor’s claim under Rule 3018(a)(4) in an amount the court was able to determine from the record so the creditor could vote on the Chapter 11 plan. The court cautions that the inquiry is summary and the allowance is temporary. Its findings do not constitute allowance under 11 U.S.C. § 502(b) and are not an adjudication of the claim’s merits.

This opinion serves as guidance for those dealing with the effect of the automatic stay in state-court family law cases.

The plaintiff filed this adversary proceeding to determine the dischargeability of debts arising out of the parties’ divorce. The debtor-defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings on the basis that a federal court cannot enforce a divorce, alimony, or child-custody decree, and that §§ 523(a)(5) and (a)(15) are self-executing and do not require an adversary proceeding.

The court authorized the Chapter 7 trustee to dissolve the debtors’ LLCs and wind up their business under Nebraska law. The court also ordered the debtors to turn over vehicles belonging to the bankruptcy estate – some of which came into the estate via the avoided transfer of an LLC and its vehicles – and directed the trustee to file a § 363 motion to sell them.

The court denied confirmation of a Subchapter V plan because it did not meet the best interests of creditors test under § 1129(a)(7) by failing to account for the present value of deferred payments to unsecured creditors. The plan also did not correctly calculate projected disposable income under § 1191(c)(2) because it was ambiguous as to whether proposed payments to the owners are for wages, management services, or equity distribution, each of which affects the disposable income calculation.

This adversary proceeding was brought under § 523(a)(2)(A) by an Ohio receiver against certain alleged “net winners” in a Ponzi scheme. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to allege they personally committed fraud.