Skip to main content

Page Banner(Taxonomy)

judge dalis

Royals v. Massey (In re Denton)

Jun
12
2007
Ruling
Trustee was not liable for overpayments to secured creditors.
Procedural posture

Movant counsel for a bankruptcy debtor asserted that the bankruptcy trustee made errors in disbursing money under a bankruptcy debtor's chapter 13 plan, which resulted in a shortfall of money available to pay counsel's fees under the plan. Counsel moved to hold the debtor in contempt.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Royals v. Massey (In re Denton) Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

opinion summary, case decided on June 12, 2007 , LexisNexis #0707-085
LexisNexis Article
Learn More

Edwards v. Turner (In re Edwards)

Apr
05
2007
Ruling
Below-median debtor not required to file additional Form B22A upon conversion to chapter 7 where Form B22C had been filed in original chapter 13 case.
Procedural posture

Movant debtor filed a motion for an order determining that she was in compliance with the means test filing requirement of 11 U.S.C. § 521 and directing the entry of a discharge.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Edwards v. Turner (In re Edwards) Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

opinion summary, case decided on April 05, 2007 , LexisNexis #0707-041
LexisNexis Article
Learn More

eCast Settlement Corp. v. Campbell (In re Campbell)

Mar
29
2007
Ruling
Debtor who lived with mother required to revise Form B22C to include her household contributions to current monthly income.
Procedural posture

A debtor filed a petition under chapter 13 and a plan for repaying his creditors, and a creditor filed an objection to confirmation of the plan, claiming that the plan could not be confirmed under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(1) and (b) because the debtor had not complied with applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and had failed to apply all projected disposable income to payments to unsecured creditors.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of eCast Settlement Corp. v. Campbell (In re Campbell) Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

opinion summary, case decided on March 29, 2007 , LexisNexis #1007-016
LexisNexis Article
Learn More

Batten v. Cardwell (In re Batten)

Sep
29
2006
Ruling
Post-confirmation, post-conversion tort claim was not property of the estate.
Procedural posture

Pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1009(a), movant debtors sought to amend the schedules in their chapter 7 case to reflect a tort claim that arose in the same month that they received a discharge.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Batten v. Cardwell (In re Batten) Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

opinion summary, case decided on September 29, 2006 , LexisNexis #1106-124
LexisNexis Article
Learn More

Baxter v. Johnson (In re Johnson)

Jul
21
2006
Ruling
Objections to confirmation were sustained and cases were continued for debtors to modify their chapter 13 plans.
Procedural posture

Movant chapter 13 trustee objected to the confirmation of two chapter 13 cases. Respondents were debtors in each of the cases. In addition, movant creditor objected to the plan filed by debtors in one of the cases for substantially similar reasons.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Baxter v. Johnson (In re Johnson) Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

opinion summary, case decided on July 21, 2006 , LexisNexis #0806-077
LexisNexis Article
Learn More

Whitaker v. Baxter (In re Whitaker)

Apr
20
2006
Ruling
Court reinstated automatic stay for second filing based on its equitable powers to prevent abuse of process since debtors had acted in good faith and creditors had not objected to stay reinstatement.
Procedural posture

Debtors who filed a second chapter 13 petition within a one year period moved to reinstate the automatic stay of pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(c)(3)(B) or (c)(4)(B) as amended following the effective date of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. The bankruptcy court considered whether such relief was available, or whether the application of 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) relief was warranted.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Whitaker v. Baxter (In re Whitaker) Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

opinion summary, case decided on April 20, 2006 , LexisNexis #0606-036
LexisNexis Article
Learn More

Baxter v. Lewis (In re Lewis)

Mar
27
2006
Ruling
Motion to dismiss the debtors'chapter 13 cases was denied since debtors qualified for plan confirmation and their inability to receive a discharge of their cases under section 1328(f)(1) did not establish a bad faith filing.
Procedural posture

Movant trustee sought dismissal of the petitions filed by respondent debtors, under chapter 13, based solely on 11 U.S.C. § 1328(f). The trustees contended that because the debtors were not eligible to receive a discharge upon the completion of any confirmed plan, the debtors were ineligible for chapter 13 relief.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Baxter v. Lewis (In re Lewis) Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

opinion summary, case decided on March 27, 2006 , LexisNexis #0406-077
LexisNexis Article
Learn More

DaimlerChrysler Fin. Serv. Ams. LLC v. Brown (In re Brown)

Mar
27
2006
Ruling
Debtors were directed to modify their plans since the creditors'claims on debtors'personal vehicles were deemed allowed secured claims to be paid at their present value.
Procedural posture

Three debtors purchased vehicles for personal use within 910 days before filing a chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. Creditors filed objections to confirmation based on 11 U.S.C. § 1325 contending that they, as secured creditors, must be paid the present value of their claims and that the debtors'plan did not comply.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of DaimlerChrysler Fin. Serv. Ams. LLC v. Brown (In re Brown) Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

opinion summary, case decided on March 27, 2006 , LexisNexis #0406-079
LexisNexis Article
Learn More
Subscribe to %1