The NCMB offers a database of opinions for the years 2000 onward, listed by year and judge. For a more detailed search, enter the keyword or case number in the search box above.

The Court confirmed the Debtor's Chapter 13 Plan over the objection of her ex-spouse.  The fact that the Plan would result in the elimination of a $57,620 divorce-related debt did not by itself show lack of good faith.

Chapter 13 Plans, Published Yes

The Debtors originally filed a Chapter 13 case and their plan was confirmed.  The Debtors then converted their case to a Chapter 7.  Following the filing of the Bankruptcy Administrator's motion to deny the male Debtor a discharge pursuant to Bankruptcy Code section 727(a)(8), the Debtors filed a motion to reconvert their case back to Chapter 13.  It is within the Court's discretion to allow or disallow a reconversion of a case from chapter 7 back to Chapter 13.  However, in this case, the Debtors failed to demonstrate any facts which would persuade the Court to exercise its discretion to allow reconversion of their case.

Conversion, Published No

Following the Brunner  test, the Court concluded that the Defendants had not established facts in the record sufficient for the purposes of summary judgment to find that Plaintiff lacked good faith or that repayment of her student loans would not cause her undue hardship.  The Court would not find that no payment options in student loan repayment plans consitituted repayment under the Brunner  standard.

Discharge/Dischargeability, Published Yes

On a motion to reconsider a previous motion seeking to add Defendant's wife as co-defendant that was denied, the Court found the evidence presented did not constitute "good cause" to amend the scheduling order as the moving party knew or could have known, with the "exercise of due diligence," the facts prior to the deadline for filing a motion to amend the scheduling order. Furthermore, no cause existed under 60(b)(1) to reconsider the prior order as neglient mistake or carelessness does not provide a basis for relief from a judgment or order.

Reconsider/Amend, Published No

Debtors submitted a plan for confirmation that modified a mortgage creditor's interest rate. Under § 1322(c)(2), a debtor may modify the payment of a claim for a debt secured by the debtor's principal residence when payments will come due during the life of the plan. The Fourth Circuit in Witt determined that § 1322(c)(2) only allows for the modification of the payment of the claim and not the claim itself. The definition of a claim is broadly construed to include a mortgage creditor's interest rate. Because the debtors proposed to modify the mortgage creditor's interest rate, and therefore its claim, the plan could not be confirmed. 

Chapter 13 Plans, Published Yes

Order granting motion to designate as a Single Asset Real Estate pursuant to §§ 101(51B) and 362(d)

Automatic Stay, Published No

Motion to impose the automatic stay denied when the debtor did not overcome the presumption that he filed his petition in bad faith. The debtor filed three petitions within a single year. The debtor's timing and motive in filing the three petitions, the effect of his petitions on the most significant creditor, the reasons his prevoius cases were dismissed, the likelihood that he will have steady income, and the objections of interested parties all weigh against imposing the automatic stay. Additionally, the nature of the debtor's debt, a note on which he is not liable, also counsels against imposing the stay.   

Automatic Stay, Published No

Debtor moved to reject the Private Mortgage Insurance portion of a deed of trust on her primary residence (or modify her Chapter 13 Plan to the same effect). The court denied the motion under 1322(b).

Chapter 13 Plans, Published No

Motion to Quash and Motion for Protective Order both denied because defendants did not have standing to quash subpoenas issued to their banks. 

Discovery, Published No

Dismissal of Chapter 11 case for cause under Section 1112 due to substantial or continuing loss to or diminution of the estate and the absence of a reasonable likelihood of rehabilitation, plus gross mismanagement of the estate

Dismissal, Published No


Subscribe to Opinions