Gilliland v. Fifth Third Mortgage Company

(S.D. Ind. Sep. 30, 2015)

The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing the pro se debtor’s chapter 13 bankruptcy case and a related adversary proceeding and denying the debtor’s motions for relief from judgment. The debtor had no income and therefore could not be a Chapter 13 debtor. Opinion below.

2015-09-30 – gilliland v fifth third mortgage

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Asch

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Aug. 18, 2015)

The bankruptcy court grants the trustee’s motion to dismiss the Chapter 13 based on the debtor having secured claims in excess of that allowed under 11 U.S.C. § 109(e). The debtor argued that her schedules, which listed secured debt less than the 109(e) threshold, should control on the issue of her eligibility. The court holds that it may review other items in the record to determine eligibility. For reasons including that the debtor failed to include prepetition interest on her mortgage debt and listed certain debts as unliquidated and contingent when they almost certainly were not, the court finds that the debtor is not eligible for Chapter 13. Opinion below.

2015-08-18 – in re ash

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Wentz

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 6, 2014)

The bankruptcy court grants the creditor’s motion to dismiss the chapter 13 case because the debtor was not eligible for chapter 13, as his unsecured debt exceeded the debt limit of 11 U.S.C. § 109(e). The court recognizes that based only on the debtor’s schedules, the debt limit was not exceeded. While the Sixth Circuit has stated a bankruptcy court should look primarily to the debtor’s schedules to make the chapter 13 eligibility determination, the bankruptcy court holds that a state court judgment against the debtor is sufficiently reliable to establish that the debtor omitted unsecured debt that would cause his total unsecured debt to exceed the § 109(e) debt limit. Opinion below.

2014-11-06 – in re wentz