In re Neace

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Jan. 6, 2017)

The bankruptcy court overrules the creditor’s objection to confirmation of the Chapter 13 plan. The creditor argued its claim, secured by the debtors’ mobile home, should be increased by the cost of delivery and set-up of the home. The court holds that set-up and delivery costs may not be used as a means to increase the replacement value as a matter of law. Opinion below.

Judge: Wise

Attorney for Debtor: Daryle M. Ronning

Attorneys for Creditor: McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie & Kirkland, Zachary A. Horn

2017-01-06-in-re-neace

Author: Matt Lindblom

Smith v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A.

(7th Cir. Dec. 22, 2016)

The Seventh Circuit affirms the district court’s judgment that the action against the debtor’s spouse did not violate the Chapter 13 co-debtor stay. The action against the spouse was based on a credit card account held only by the spouse. The debtor argued that, based on Wisconsin law, her assets were subject to the spouse’s credit card debt. The court holds that, while the automatic stay would prevent collection from property of the estate, the co-debtor stay did not prevent the action against the spouse because the debtor was not a “co-debtor” on that debt. Opinion below.

Judge: Flaum

Attorneys for Debtor: Kerkman & Dunn, Briane F. Pagel, Jr., Gregory M. Schreiber

Attorneys for Appellee: Hunton & Williams, Jarrett Lee Hale, Gregory G. Hesse, Eric W. Flynn, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP,  Jeffrey P. Justman, Jane E. Maschka, Aaron D. Van Oort

2016-12-22-smith-v-capital-one-bank

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Elkins

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 22, 2016)

The bankruptcy court grants the creditor’s motion to modify the stay to allow the creditor to proceed with the state court real property foreclosure action. The court finds that cause exists for stay relief for reasons including that this second bankruptcy filing by the debtor was pending for three months, the debtor’s plan depended on a sale of the property, the debtor had not taken any action to proceed with the sale, and there was no proof that the debtor’s spouse (co-owner of the property) would consent to the sale. Opinion below.

Judge: Schaaf

Attorney for Debtor: DelCotto Law Group PLLC, Dean A. Langdon

Attorney for Creditor: Miller, Griffin & Marks, P.S.C., Carroll M. Redford, III

2016-11-22-in-re-elkins

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Lockhart

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Oct. 28, 2016)

The bankruptcy court enters an order holding in abeyance the motion to dismiss the Chapter 13 case. The court also denies confirmation of the proposed plan but holds the case open for further filings. The required maintenance payment could not be satisfied by the monthly payments in the proposed plan. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorneys for Debtor: Naber & Joyner, J. Gregory Joyner

Attorney for Creditor: Joseph S. Elder II

2016-10-28-in-re-lockhart

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Smith

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Oct. 6, 2016)

The bankruptcy court sustains the trustee’s objection to confirmation of the debtor’s chapter 13 plan. The proposed plan provided for monthly payments for three years, but the Court finds that the applicable commitment period should be five years. The debtor argued that he should have a “marital adjustment” for loan payments on which his wife is contractually obligated, but the Court holds that those payments should be included in the calculation of the debtor’s combined monthly income, and thus the applicable commitment period is five years. Opinion below.

Judge: Carr

Attorney for Debtor: John Steinkamp & Associates, John T. Steinkamp

Trustee: Ann M. DeLaney

2016-10-06-in-re-smith

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Mustafa

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. September 14, 2016)

Debtor obtained a personal loan from bank to buy a Mercedes at a car auction and represented to the loan officer that the car was for personal and family use. The day debtor received the loan proceeds he leased the car to his used car business, which then sold the car to debtor’s friend, an out of state resident. Debtor failed to satisfy the bank loan with the sales proceeds. Instead, his business used the proceeds to pay its debts. Also, the business never transferred title to the car to debtor’s friend in order to hide the fact that the car had been sold. Debtor continued to make a few loan payments to the bank, but eventually quit and filed Chapter 13, which is when the bank learned that the car had been sold. The bank filed a dischargeability action and the court found that debtor made material misrepresentations to obtain a consumer loan and never intended to use the car for personal use. Thus, the debt, including attorney’s fees, was nondischargeable pursuant to both §523(a)(2) and (a)(6). Also, debtor’s plan, in which he proposed to surrender the vehicle to the bank, was not confirmed and was found lacking in good faith since, among other things, the car was currently located out of state in a repair shop subject to a $10,000 mechanics lien. Opinion below.

Judge: Schaaf

Attorney for Debtor: Tom Bunch

Attorney for Creditor: Greg Pavey and Jessica Middendorf

Author: Robert Imperial

2016-09-14-in-re-mustafa

In re Hurst

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. July 8, 2016)

The court overrules the debtor’s ex-spouse’s objection to confirmation of the Chapter 13 plan. The creditor argued her claim could not be discharged because it was a domestic support obligation. However, the court analyzes the divorce decree and determines that the payments ordered were not tied to health or employment prospects or the creditor’s ability to support herself. Under the circumstances, the court concludes the claim is not for a domestic support obligation and may be discharged. Opinion below.

Judge: Moberly

Attorney for Debtor: Robert Perry Law Office, Robert C. Perry

Attorney for Creditor: Eric C. Welch

2016-07-08 – in re hurst

Author: Matt Lindblom