The chapter 7 trustee filed an objection to exemptions claimed by the debtor and a motion for turnover as to certain amounts in the debtor's accounts.

The applicable commitment period mandated by 11 U.S.C.S. § 1325(b)(4) for above median debtors, which was the case, was sixty months. Since the debtors' proposed plan was shorter, and because the proposed plan did not pay unsecured creditors in full, it could not be confirmed. Based on their schedules, the debtors had monthly disposable income of $ 2,334. The debtors failed to overcome the presumption that the means test determination of disposable income was also their projected disposable income. They claimed a secured expense of $ 205.75, which was the monthly debt payment on their Starcraft camper, proposing to retain the camper and continue to make those payments to the lender. The creditor argued successfully that the camper was a luxury item that should be surrendered, and that the $205.75 of future income had to be devoted to paying unsecured creditors. Also, because the debtors' car was paid for, the court held that the debtors were not entitled to take the standard IRS table deduction for automobile expense against projected disposable income.

This matter was before the court on a creditor's Objection to Confirmation of the debtors'chapter 13 plan. That plan proposed to bifurcate the creditor's secured claim in the debtors'recently purchased car because as part of the purchase, the creditor financed the "negative equity" in the debtors'trade-in vehicle.

Plaintiff consumer filed a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq., complaint against defendant holding company, then amended the complaint to dismiss the company and name defendant affiliate debt collection firm. The firm filed motions to dismiss as to both complaints, arguing the consumer failed to properly list the lawsuit on her bankruptcy schedules, thus divesting her of standing and the court of jurisdiction.

Plaintiff, the personal representative of the deceased's estate, filed an adversary proceeding seeking a determination that a debt owed by defendant debtor was not dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) because the conduct of the debtor was willful and malicious. The court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Appellant debtor filed a chapter 13 bankruptcy petition and then initiated an adversary proceeding against appellee creditor to prevent its foreclosure action on his residence. The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment in favor of the creditor and the debtor sought review. The court, sua sponte, considered whether the debtor's failure to comply with Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8006 warranted dismissal under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8001(a).