In re Challis

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Jan. 31, 2018)

The bankruptcy court grants the U.S. Trustee’s motion to dismiss pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 707(b)(1) and (2). The bankruptcy court concludes that the presumption of abuse arises based on the Debtors’ schedules and the submitted means test form. The debtors failed to rebut the presumption, despite their arguments that deductions to their monthly income should be made due to special circumstances. Opinion below.

Judge: Carr

Attorney for Debtors: Steven P. Taylor

2018-01-31 – in re challis

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Brunck

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Feb. 24, 2016)

The bankruptcy court overrules the trustee’s objection to the debtors’ proposed Chapter 13 plan. For purposes of the means test, the debtors deducted as a car ownership expense payments on a non-purchase money loan secured by their car. The trustee objected, arguing that the deduction was inappropriate because it was not a purchase-money loan and thus not a car ownership expense. The trustee relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ransom v. FIA Card Services, N.A. The bankruptcy court rejected the trustee’s argument, holding that the expense constituted a car ownership expense for purposes of the means test.

2016-02-24 – in re brunck

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Peterson

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Feb. 4, 2015)

The bankruptcy court denies the creditor’s motion to dismiss or convert the chapter 7 case. The creditor had obtained a judgment against the debtor and her employer for the debtor’s unlawful accessing and dissemination of the creditor’s medical information. The creditor sought dismissal of the case under § 707(b) (failure of means test), but the court determined the debtor’s debts were not primarily consumer debts and thus that section did not apply. While the judgment was not a business debt, that did not necessarily mean it was a consumer debt. The creditor also sought dismissal for cause under § 707(a). The court recognized that seeking to pay a large debt of one creditor is a factor in favor of dismissal, but that alone did not warrant dismissal for cause. There was no evidence of the debtor’s ability to pay the large judgment. Finally, the creditor alternatively sought to convert the case to chapter 11, but the court denied the request, finding no credible evidence of the debtor’s ability to pay the debt or that chapter 11 would benefit creditors more than chapter 7 (in part because the creditor could collect the judgment from the debtor’s employer). Opinion below.

2015-02-04 – in re peterson

Author: Matt Lindblom