|
|
|
Opinions/Orders for
|
Date Entered |
Last Name |
Description |
6-19-08 |
Creditor objected to the confirmation of the debtors' chapter 13 plan claiming it held a 910 car claim that was not subject to bifurcation. The debtors argued that because negative equity from a trade-in vehicle was part of the purchase price, the creditor did not hold a PMSI as described in the hanging paragraph of section 1325(a), and bifurcation was appropriate. The Court sustained the creditor's objection because the final agreement between the parties did not show that negative equity was part of the obligation. | |
6-6-08 |
The Court granted creditor’s Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment based on conflicting orders entered by the Court, and set aside the second order entered. The debtor did not object to or appeal from the first order entered, and it became a final order, which the Court will enforce. | |
5-30-08 |
The Court overruled the chapter 7 trustee's objection to exemptions after finding that the debtor's actions surrounding her failure to disclose an asset of her bankruptcy estate (a sexual harassment claim) did not rise to the level of bad faith. | |
3-17-08 |
Court denied creditor's motion to strike the entities listed as trade names on the debtors' chapter 7 petition. Even though the entities listed as the debtor's trade names may be separate legal entities, there was no evidence introduced that those names were not also used as trade names. | |
3-13-08 |
Debtor who, in a prior case, originally filed a chapter 13 case that later converted to a chapter 7 case was eligible to receive a discharge in his current chapter 13 case even though the current case was filed within four years of the date his previous case was filed. The section 1328(f) time limits relating to a subsequent discharge refer to the chapter under which the previous case was filed, regardless of later conversion to another chapter. Amended by Correcting Order entered March 17, 2008 |
|
2-26-08 |
The debtor is entitled to claim a vehicle ownership expense on her Form B22C (chapter 13 means test) even though she owns the vehicle free and clear of liens and makes no monthly payments on the vehicle. The debtor was also entitled to claim operating expenses for two vehicles absent any evidence to rebut the debtor’s claim. | |
2-26-08 |
Chapter 7 and chapter 13 means tests serve different purposes. Chapter 13 debtors who surrender property in their plan are not entitled to include payments for that property on their Form B22C to determine disposable income. | |
2-19-08 |
The Court overruled the chapter 13 trustee's objection to confirmation and held that the debtor could use the Local Standard expense amounts applicable to Florida residents on his means test because the debtor resided in Florida on the date of filing the bankruptcy petition. | |
1-29-08 |
Chapter 13 trustee's objections to confirmation of plans were sustained. The court held that above median income chapter 13 debtors are required to pay into their respective plans the monthly disposable income as determined by Form B22C, even though their current monthly income (as defined by the code) exceeded present income. | |
1-15-08 |
Under pre BAPCPA preference law, trustee may avoid two of four payments made during preference period determined by the Court not to have been paid in the ordinary course of business of the debtor and the creditor. | |
1-10-08 |
Court overruled creditor’s objection to chapter 7 trustee’s application for settlement. Creditor argued that a trust the debtors created pre-petition to hold real property was fraudulent and claimed a lien on the proceeds resulting from the sale of the property by the chapter 7 trustee. The Court held that even if trust was invalid, chapter 7 trustee could avoid creditor’s lien pursuant to § 544(a)(3). | |
12-20-07 |
Motion to extend time for UST to file motion under s. 704(b)(2) is denied as a matter of law. A definitive 10-day statement of whether a debtor's chapter 7 case would be presumed to be an abuse, as required under s. 704(b)(1), is a prerequisite to filing the motion required by s. 704(b)(2). Because the UST did not file a definitive 10-day statement, the threshold requirement to filing the s. 704(b)(2) motion has not been met and the UST is precluded from filing a motion to dismiss or convert under s. 704(b)(2). Therefore, the motion to extend the time to file a s. 704(b)(2) motion is moot. | |
12-19-07 |
The Court determined that certain funds were non-dischargeable in the debtor's bankruptcy as a result of embezzlement in accordance with s. 523(a)(4). | |
10-5-07 |
The Court denied creditor's motion for relief from stay to setoff funds deposited post-petition into a debtor's savings account against a negative balance incurred pre-petition in the debtors' joint checking account because the creditor failed to meet the requirements of 11 U.S.C. 553(a). | |
9-24-07 |
Even though the UST did not file a definitive statement indicating whether the debtor’s case was a presumption of abuse, as required by § 704(b)(1), she was not precluded from filing motion to dismiss under § 707(b)(3) based on debtor’s declaration on Form B22A (means test) that there was no presumption of abuse. | |
8-29-07 |
Using a totality of the circumstances standard, the Court found that this chapter 7 debtor, whose income was below 150% of the income official poverty line, was unable to pay the filing fee in installments and, therefore, eligible to have the filing fee waived, even though she had paid her attorney $300 prior to filing the petition. | |
6-28-07 |
Debtors who moved from Arizona to Arkansas within 730 days required to use Arizona exemption statute, if available, under 522(b)(2) and (3); however, even though Arizona is an “opt-out” state, non-residents are not precluded from using federal exemptions. | |
5-22-07 |
Chapter 7 debtors who filed their petition in Arkansas (where venue was proper) were required to use Iowa exemptions because they had not been domiciled in Arkansas for 730 days prior to filing pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(b). Iowa is an opt-out state. Because Iowa homestead exemption on its face is not territorial, the Court found that Iowa’s homestead law would apply to the debtors’ homestead located in Arkansas. |
Court Calendars | Court Information | Directions | ECF | FAQ's | Filing Information | Forms | New Items | Opinions | Orders | Rules| | Trustees |