Debtors converted their Chapter 13 case to a Chapter 7. Certain of the funds held by the Chapter 13 Trustee were pursuant to an agreement not to pursue a preference claim against the male Debtor's parents under sections 547 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code. The source of these funds collected were postpetition wages. The Debtors agreed to have $3,600 remitted directly to the Chapter 7 Trustee in contemplation of the preference agreement. The Court declined to find that the funds collected but not disbursed were prepetition property . Under the recent Supreme Court decision, Harris v. Viegelahn, _U.S._, 135 S.Ct. 1829 (2015) postpeitition wages were to be remitted to the Debtors, but in this instance funds were remitted directly to the Chapter 7 Trustee in light of the Debtors' agreement.
Opinions:
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.
(Judge: Benjamin A. Kahn)
Debtor objected to claim filed by SunTrust as untimely. The Debtor had timely filed a proof of claim on behalf of the creditor, and SunTrust later filed a proof of claim after the plan had been confirmed. The Court found that the Debtor did not rebut the prima facie validity of the claim, and the creditor was allowed to amend the Debtor's timely filed proof of claim.
(Judge: Lena M. James)
The objection of Earl Pickett to the administrative claim of Bryant-Durham Services, Inc. for services performed on the Debtor's property was overruled.
(Judge: Lena M. James)
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.
(Judge: Lena M. James)
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.
(Judge: Benjamin A. Kahn)
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.
(Judge: Benjamin A. Kahn)
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.
(Judge: Catharine R. Aron)
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.
(Judge: Lena M. James)
Order granting motion to designate as a Single Asset Real Estate pursuant to §§ 101(51B) and 362(d)
(Judge: Catharine R. Aron)
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.
Pages
Printer-friendly version