Search Opinion

In re Nelson

The court ruled on creditors' objections to nonstandard language added to Paragraph V.G. in four proposed chapter 13 plan confirmations.
Ruling: 
Model plan language added to paragraphs dealing with mortgage payments in four chapter 13 plans was disapproved resulting in denial of confirmation.
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
Consumer case opionion summary, case decided on December 23,2008, LexisNexis #0909-010

In re Arrigo

The matter came before the court on confirmation of the Second Amended Chapter 13 Plan filed by debtors, and the objection thereto filed by the Standing Chapter 13 Trustee.
Ruling: 
Trustee's objection to confirmation overruled as there was no substantial change in circumstances to warrant deviation from Form 22C projected disposable income calculation.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Arrigo. 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 04,2008, LexisNexis #0209-129

In re McCauley

Debtors filed a motion to confirm their amended plan. A secured creditor filed an objection to confirmation on the grounds that the "hanging paragraph" at the end of 11 U.S.C.S. § 1325(a) prevented the debtors from cramming down the creditor's secured claim on their vehicle pursuant to 11 U.S.C.S. § 506(a).
Ruling: 
"910 vehicle" loan was precluded from modifications only to extent of purchase money security interest which did not include negative equity on trade-in.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re McCauley. 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 November 20,2008, LexisNexis #0209-018

In re Hudak

The debtor's fourth amended chapter 13 plan of reorganization was before the court. A limited objection thereto filed by her mortgage creditor asserted that certain provisions impermissibly modified the contractual deed of trust rights and lien claim in violation of 11 U.S.C.S. § 1322(b). The debtor argued that the creditor's future failure to comply with the specified language would violate the discharge injunction under 11 U.S.C.S. § 524(i).
Ruling: 
Plan requirement that creditor deem prepetition arrearage contractually current upon confirmation was not an impermissible modification.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Hudak. 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 24,2008, LexisNexis #1108-128

In re Hudak

A debtor filed a fourth amended chapter 13 plan of reorganization. A creditor filed a limited objection to the plan, alleging that certain provisions impermissibly modified its secured lien in contravention of 11 U.S.C.S. § 1322(b)(2) and were otherwise violative of 11 U.S.C.S. § 1322(b)(5). The creditor also alleged that 11 U.S.C.S. § 524(i) did not apply.
Ruling: 
Confirmation of debtor's fourth amended chapter 13 plan denied due to impermissible modification of creditor's secured lien.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Hudak. 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 20,2008, LexisNexis #1208-053

In re Brown

Debtors sought confirmation of their chapter 13 plan, but the trustee objected to the proposed 42 month plan that would not pay all unsecured creditors in full as being contrary to requirements of 11 U.S.C.S. § 1325(b)(1)(B).
Ruling: 
Above median debtor could not propose plan with shorter term than required that did not pay unsecured creditors in full.
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
Consumer case opionion summary, case decided on October 10,2008, LexisNexis #0109-026

In re Goldsboro

Two pairs of debtors had filed for relief under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. In both proceedings, a chapter 7 trustee, filed a motion for the debtors' to turnover payments they received under the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-185, 122 Stat. 613, as property of the estate, pursuant to 11 U.S.C.S. §§ 521 and 542. The court held a hearing and issued findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Ruling: 
Debtors' economic stimulus payments were property of the estate and subject to turnover.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Goldsboro. 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 September 26,2008, LexisNexis #0109-016

In re Pfeiler

The debtors filed for relief under chapter 13 and submitted a proposed first plan and an amended plan. A chapter 13 trustee filed objections to confirmation of the first plan and the amended plan because the debtors did not propose a 60-month plan.
Ruling: 
Court rejected "snapshot" income analysis in holding that debtors were "above median" and required to submit plan with term of five years.
ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Pfeiler. 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 September 12,2008, LexisNexis #1008-127

In re Sanchez

The Standing chapter 13 trustee objected to confirmation of the plan of an above-median-income debtor on the grounds that it was not a 60-month plan as required under 11 U.S.C.S. § 1325(b)(4).
Ruling: 
Above-median debtor's plan could not be confirmed as proposing only partial repayment of unsecured creditors over less than five years.
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
Consumer case opionion summary, case decided on September 12,2008, LexisNexis #1008-128

In re Williams

In consolidated proceedings, the standing chapter 13 Trustee (Trustee) objected to plan confirmation in three separate cases. The parties in these cases contested the meaning of the phrases "projected disposable income" (PDI) and "applicable commitment period" (ACP) in 11 U.S.C.S. § 1325(b)(1)(B) as amended by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA).
Ruling: 
Confirmation denied due to plan's failure to pay projected disposable income to unsecured creditors.
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 September 12,2008, LexisNexis #1008-089

Pages