Skip to main content

§ 109(e)

In re Odette

Ruling
Debtors'guarantee of corporate debt did not cause them to exceed debt limits for chapter 13 and conversion from chapter 7 was allowed.
Procedural posture

The debtors moved to convert their chapter 7 case to chapter 13. Creditors filed objections. The first objection was that the debtors were ineligible under 11 U.S.C. § 109(e), because their total debts exceeded the chapter 13 unsecured debt ceiling. The second objection was that irrespective of the outcome of the first objection, the attempted conversion was in bad faith.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Odette Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

opinion summary, case decided on August 07, 2006 , LexisNexis #0906-012

In re Nelson

Ruling
Debtor was not eligible for chapter 13 relief since debtor filed plan in bad faith.
Procedural posture

In a prior proceeding, the bankruptcy court summarily ruled that the debtor's proposed chapter 13 plan was filed in bad faith and dismissed the case. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit reversed the decision and remanded the case, holding that the bankruptcy court should have permitted the debtor to amend her plan before dismissing the case.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Nelson Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

opinion summary, case decided on July 26, 2006 , LexisNexis #0806-120

In re Adams

Ruling
Disputed IRS debt could not be considered in debt limit calculation for chapter 13 eligibility.
Procedural posture

The chapter 13 trustee filed a motion to dismiss the debtor's case. The trustee alleged that the debtor was not eligible for relief under chapter 13 because he exceeded the debt limits in 11 U.S.C. § 109(e).

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Adams Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

opinion summary, case decided on June 27, 2006 , LexisNexis #1206-116

In re Brown

Ruling
Claim for treble damages for debtor's fraudulent medical invoices was unsecured and unliquidated and did not cause debtor to exceed chapter 13 debt ceiling.
Procedural posture

An unsecured creditor and a trustee filed motions to dismiss a debtor's chapter 13 bankruptcy case on the ground that the debt owed to the creditor exceeded the debt ceiling set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 109(e).

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of 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 June 23, 2006 , LexisNexis #1006-003

In re Schwartz

Ruling
Motion to dismiss was denied since creditor failed to show debtor's noncontingent, liquidated, unsecured debts exceeded the permitted limit.
Procedural posture

Respondent creditor filed a motion to dismiss petitioner debtor's chapter 13 bankruptcy case on the ground that the debtor was not eligible to be a chapter 13 debtor. The creditor objected to the chapter 13 plan.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Schwartz Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

opinion summary, case decided on May 17, 2006 , LexisNexis #0606-009

In re Doyle

Ruling
Plan confirmation was denied since the debtors' combined scheduled noncontingent, liquidated, unsecured debts exceeded the amount allowed under chapter 13.
Procedural posture

Before the court in a chapter 13 matter was the Oregon Secretary of State Elections Division's objection to confirmation of debtors'chapter 13 plan.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Doyle Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

opinion summary, case decided on March 21, 2006 , LexisNexis #0406-082

In re Shepard

Ruling
Debtor husband was ineligible for chapter 13 relief because the debtor husband's unsecured claims exceeded the statutory limit.
Procedural posture

Bankruptcy debtors, husband and wife, filed a joint chapter 13 bankruptcy petition, but the debtors did not identify as an asset a condominium that was co-owned by the husband and a daughter. A lender which financed the purchase of the condominium filed a proof of a secured mortgage claim, and the trustee moved to dismiss the debtors petition based on debt limits under 11 U.S.C. § 109(e).

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Shepard Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

opinion summary, case decided on January 25, 2006 , LexisNexis #0206-062

In re Buis

Ruling
Debtors'chapter 13 case was dismissed on a creditor's motion since the creditor's claim of attorneys'fees incurred in obtaining a judgment against the debtors was a noncontingent, liquidated claim that put the debtors over the unsecured debt limit.
Procedural posture

Creditor filed a motion to dismiss chapter 13 debtors'case or convert it to a case under chapter 7.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Buis Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

opinion summary, case decided on January 11, 2006 , LexisNexis #0206-063

In re Schmidt

Ruling
Debtors'chapter 13 case was dismissed since they failed to show they had sufficient income to fund a plan and because their noncontingent, liquidated, unsecured debts exceeded the statutory limit.
Procedural posture

Debtors filed for bankruptcy relief under chapter 13. The creditors filed two motions to dismiss the petition and a motion to show cause why the bankruptcy proceeding should not be dismissed. The creditors contended that the debtors were not eligible for chapter 13 relief, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 109(e), that the debtors did not file in good faith.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Schmidt Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

opinion summary, case decided on January 04, 2006 , LexisNexis #0206-098