- 11 U.S.C.
In re Espinoza
Aug
01
2008
Ruling
Plan proposing "step up" in monthly payments to secured creditor could not be confirmed.
Procedural posture
After debtors, a married couple, sought confirmation of their proposed chapter 13 plan, a secured creditor filed an objection claiming that the plan was not properly confirmed because it failed to provide for "equal monthly payments" in an amount sufficient to adequately protect the creditor's interests during the term of the plan. At issue was whether, notwithstanding that objection, the plan complied with 11 U.S.C.S. § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)(I).
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Espinoza Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Court
:
- 11 U.S.C.
In re Espinoza
Aug
01
2008
Ruling
Plan calling for two-tiered payments did not meet requirement of equal monthly payments on allowed secured claims and could not be confirmed.
Procedural posture
A creditor objected to the confirmation of the debtors' proposed chapter 13 plan on the ground that the plan's unequal monthly payments did not comply with 11 U.S.C.S. § 1325(a)(4)(B)(iii)(I).
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Espinoza Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Court
:
- 11 U.S.C.
In re Kleeb
May
23
2008
Ruling
Creditor entitled to interest on loan that was modified as part of debtor's plan.
Procedural posture
In their chapter 13 proposed plan, debtors proposed to pay a creditor's secured claim in full at its 0 percent contract interest rate. They also sought to modify the terms of the contract to extend the repayment period by almost four years. The creditor objected to confirmation of the plan.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Kleeb Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Court
:
- 11 U.S.C.
Thompson v. GMAC (In re Thompson)
May
23
2008
Ruling
Debtor not entitled to turnover of repossessed vehicle without providing adequate protection payments.
Procedural posture
Following a repossesion, plaintiff debtor filed an adversary proceeding against defendant creditor seeking turnover of his vehicle under 11 U.S.C.S. § 542(a).
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Thompson v. GMAC (In re Thompson) Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Court
:
- 11 U.S.C.
DaimlerChrysler Fin. Servs. Ams. LLC v. Rivera (In re Rivera)
May
02
2008
Ruling
Confirmation reversed where payments to creditor were left to trustee's discretion and not in specified equal monthly amounts.
Procedural posture
Appellant, a secured creditor in the underlying bankruptcy proceedings, challenged the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Indiana's confirmation of appellee debtors' chapter 13 plan.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of DaimlerChrysler Fin. Servs. Ams. LLC v. Rivera (In re Rivera) Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Court
:
- 11 U.S.C.
In re Sanchez
Mar
19
2008
Ruling
Confirmation denied due to failure to provide for equal monthly payments.
Procedural posture
The debtors filed for relief under chapter 13 of the United States Bankruptcy Code and submitted a proposed plan. A creditor filed an objection to confirmation of the plan, claiming that the plan did not comply with 11 U.S.C.S. § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii).
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Sanchez Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Court
:
- 11 U.S.C.
Drive Fin. Servs. LP v. Jordan
Mar
12
2008
Ruling
Till case remains binding precedent under BAPCPA regarding application of prime-plus interest rate.
Procedural posture
Appellant creditor sought a direct appeal under 28 U.S.C.S. § 158(d)(2) of orders of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Texas amending and confirming a chapter 13 bankruptcy plan submitted by appellee debtors, which provided for interest on the creditor's secured claim on the debtors' truck at a "prime-plus" interest rate pursuant to the cram down provision of 11 U.S.C.S. § 1325(a)(5)(B).
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Drive Fin. Servs. LP v. Jordan Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Court
:
Judge or Jurisdiction information not available
- 11 U.S.C.
In re Wallace
Nov
12
2007
Ruling
Chapter 13 plan calling for balloon payment to creditor whose claim was secured by real property could not be confirmed.
Procedural posture
A creditor filed an objection, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii), to the individual debtors'chapter 13 plan.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Wallace Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Court
:
- 11 U.S.C.
In re Garcia
Nov
09
2007
Ruling
Release of lien language could not be included in chapter 13 plan.
Procedural posture
A debtor's chapter 13 plan provided a mechanism for creditors secured by lien notations on certificates of title to release their liens under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(5)(B)(i) upon either the debtor's payment of the entire indebtedness owed to the creditor or an entry of discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 1328. A creditor opposed confirmation of the plan in light of the release provision.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Garcia Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Court
:
- 11 U.S.C.
In re Lilly
Oct
30
2007
Ruling
Chapter 13 debtor not entitled to discharge could confirm plan paying Till rate of interest on "910" claim.
Procedural posture
Claimant creditor objected to confirmation of debtor's Amended Chapter 13 Plan. At issue was whether the lien retention provision added by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 ("BAPCPA") to 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(5)(B)(i) prevented a chapter 13 debtor who was not entitled to a discharge from modifying the interest rate on a secured claim and, if permitted, the post-bankruptcy effect of such modification.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Lilly Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member
Court
: