Debtors sought to reopen their Chapter 13 after completing their plan and receiving their discharge almost three years prior, to challenge the validity of their mortgagor's Deed of Trust. During the case, the Debtors never objected to the mortgagor's proof of claim, the mortgage was paid through the plan, and the Debtors relied on the mortgage to lien strip a junior mortgage. Since the plan was closed, the mortgagor has made several attempts at foreclosure, leading to substantial state and federal litigation and administrative actions. The court ruled that the mortgagor would be prejudiced by reopening the case, that laches applied in precluding the reopening of the case, and that state court was the appropriate forum to address the Debtors' claims. Motion denied.

Motion by trustee sought turnover of certain severance payments the Debtor had received and was continuing to receive post-petition.  The Debtor received these payments as part of a severance agreement entered into pre-petition.  Debtor argued that the payments received post-petition should not be property of the estate and were akin to wages or salary that could be excluded from the estate pursuant to Section 541(a)(6).  The Court found that the severance payments were property of the estate because they were sufficiently rooted in the pre-petition past and that the services performed to become entitled to these payments had been substantially, if not fully, rendered pre-petition.  Debtor was therefore ordered to turnover any severance proceeds to the trustee.

The Court found that an oversecured creditor was entitled to pre- and post-petition interest at the contract default rate.  With respect to post-petition interest, the Court found that the Trustee had failed to rebut the presumption that the contract rate should apply.  The Court also found that adequate protection payments made by the debtor while the case was administratively consolidated should be credited to debt at issue.  To determine the appropriateness of a request for post-petition attorneys' fees, the court looked to the underlying loan documents.

Former business associate of the Debtor obtained a default judgment against the Debtor in Connecticut state court prior to the petition date, and filed an adversary proceeding to assert nondischargeability pursuant 523(a)(2)(A) and 523(a)(4). The Debtor failed to answer or otherwise plead, and after re-issuing summons, the plaintiff obtained a default judgment in the proceeding. The Debtor motioned to vacate the default judgment and entry of default pursuant to Rule 60(b)(4) and (6) on the grounds that the Debtor was never served despite plaintiff's attempts. The Court ruled that the Debtor's Motion was timely; that the Debtor could assert meritorious defenses, and that the Connecticut judgment was did not collaterally estop the Debtor from opposing the claims in the current proceeding; that no party was unfairly prejudiced by vacating the default judgment; that the Debtor was never properly served pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 7004; and that entry of default could be set aside.