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

In re Jude

(E.D. Ky. Bankr. June 24, 2016)

In this Chapter 13, the bankruptcy court rules on the objection to confirmation and finds that the creditor’s expert’s valuation of the debtor’s mobile home was more reliable than the valuations provided by the debtor’s experts. The creditor’s expert testimony was not hearsay, as it was reasonable for the expert to rely on information about the particular mobile home model provided by the manufacturer. The debtor’s experts failed to obtain knowledge of the particular model before determining their values. Opinion below.

Judge: Schaaf

Attorney for Debtor: Holmes Law Firm, Elaina L. Holmes

Attorney for Creditor: McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, Zachary A. Horn

2016-06-24 – in re jude

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Thornton

In re Thornton

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. May 23, 2016)

The bankruptcy court sustains the creditor’s objection to the proposed Chapter 13 plan, finding the creditor’s expert more credible than the debtor’s expert as to valuation of the debtor’s mobile home. Thus, the the creditor’s secured claim was higher than the amount provided for in the plan. The court also holds that certain of the appliances in the home are not accessions and thus are not subject to the creditor’s lien. Opinion below.

Judge: Moberly

Attorney for Debtors: Albright and Albright, Attorneys at Law, Jonathan Lamoin Albright, Jr.

Attorney for Creditor: Timothy J. O’Connor

2016-05-23 – in re thornton

Author: Matt Lindblom

In re Snowden

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Feb. 12, 2016)

The bankruptcy court overrules the creditor’s objection to confirmation of the debtors’ chapter 13 plan. The creditor argued that its secured claim could not be modified pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b). The collateral real property consisted of five parcels of real property that were contiguous, except for one intervening lot also owned by the debtors. That fact, along with the fact that the debtors purchased the parcels at separate times from different sellers, supported a finding that the lots were not solely the debtor’s principal residence. Thus, the anti-modification provision of § 1322(b) does not apply. Opinion below.

2016-02-12 – in re snowden

Author: Matt Lindblom