§ 1322(a)

In re Penaran

The debtor filed an objection to the claim of the creditor, Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services (IHFS), for a domestic support obligation arrearage of nearly $ 49,000. The creditor moved to dismiss the debtor's case, and the debtor asserted that the creditor had violated the automatic stay by instituting a postpetition garnishment and the suspension of the debtor's driver's license.
Ruling: 
Plan confirmed over objection of state family services agency.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Penaran. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Consumer case opionion summary, case decided on February 03,2010, LexisNexis #0410-096

In re Sosa

Bankruptcy debtors proposed a plan which provided for minimal payments for a substantial child support arrearage being collected by a county agency. The bankruptcy trustee objected to confirmation of the plan.
Ruling: 
Confirmation denied where plan did not give county agency sufficient notice of treatment of child support arrearage.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Sosa. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Consumer case opionion summary, case decided on January 21,2010, LexisNexis #0310-055

In re Edwards

Bankruptcy debtors proposed a chapter 13 plan which provided for less than full payment of a child support arrearage which was assigned to a state agency. The bankruptcy trustee objected to confirmation of the debtor's plan.
Ruling: 
Child support arrearage was subordinated due to assignment but plan confirmation was denied due to lack of meaningful notice to asignee.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Edwards. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Consumer case opionion summary, case decided on January 20,2010, LexisNexis #0310-056

In re Egeland

Chapter 13 debtors voluntarily dismissed their case in August of 2009. The trustee was holding funds pending resolution of a dispute between the debtors and a creditor bank. The creditor moved for disbursement of the funds to it.
Ruling: 
Payments held by trustee pending resolution of chapter 13 debtor's dispute with creditor could be paid to creditor following voluntary dismissal of case.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Egeland. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Consumer case opionion summary, case decided on January 13,2010, LexisNexis #0310-025

In re Trupp

A bankruptcy debtor's chapter 13 plan not provide for full payment of pre- petition child support arrearages owed to both the debtor's former spouse and to a state agency. The state objected to confirmation of the debtor's plan on the ground that 11 U.S.C.S. § 1322(a)(2) required the debtor to pay both the obligation owed to the agency and the obligation owed to the spouse in full.
Ruling: 
Objection to confirmation of debtor's plan sustained on behalf of former spouse but overruled with regard to state support agency.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Trupp. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Consumer case opionion summary, case decided on December 08,2009, LexisNexis #0110-064

In re Carey

Chapter 13 trustee moved to deny confirmation of each of the debtors' chapter 13 plans because such plans provided that the debtors would make postpetition mortgage payments directly to the respective mortgage holder, and not as part of their chapter 13 plan payments to the trustee. The court held a joint hearing.
Ruling: 
Confirmation denied as plan was not feasible.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Carey. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Consumer case opionion summary, case decided on March 09,2009, LexisNexis #0409-060

DeHart v. Baden (In re Baden)

The chapter 13 trustee filed an objection to the confirmation of the debtors' chapter 13 plan. The trustee asserted that the debtors' improperly excluded unemployment compensation that the husband received under the Social Security Act in the calculation of current monthly income (CMI). The trustee contended that this treatment of unemployment compensation violated 11 U.S.C.S. § 1322(a)(1).
Ruling: 
Confirmation denied due to debtor's exclusion of unemployment compensation from current monthly income calculation.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of DeHart v. Baden (In re Baden). Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Consumer case opionion summary, case decided on October 30,2008, LexisNexis #0109-023

In re Fitzgerald

Chapter 13 debtors objected to a proof of claim filed by the IRS, and the IRS objected to the confirmation of the debtors'plan under 11 U.S.C.S. § 1322(a)(2).
Ruling: 
IRS Trust Fund Recovery penalty was personal to the debtors and had to be provided for in plan.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Fitzgerald. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Consumer case opionion summary, case decided on October 10,2008, LexisNexis #0209-127

In re Griffin

A debtor filed for relief under chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code, and submitted a proposed plan. The Alabama Department of Human Resources (DHR) objected to the confirmation of the proposed plan, claiming that pursuant to 11 U.S.C.S. § 507, the DHR's priority claims needed to be paid in full during the term of the plan.
Ruling: 
Domestic support obligations being collected by state were priority claims that were required to be paid in full during term of plan.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Griffin. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Consumer case opionion summary, case decided on May 30,2008, LexisNexis #0708-089

In re Williams

A debtor filed for relief under chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. An order was entered confirming the debtor's amended chapter 13 plan. The debtor filed a motion to modify the plan to allow for a claim of the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services (IDHFS) at 10% of the allowed claim, pursuant to 11 U.S.C.S. § 1322(a)(4).
Ruling: 
Debtor could not modify plan to reduce allowance of super-priority claim.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Williams. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Consumer case opionion summary, case decided on March 17,2008, LexisNexis #0708-017

Pages

Subscribe to § 1322(a)