In re May, 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 4046 (November 2010) -- Judge Kelley
After Hamilton v. Lanning, in computing projected disposable income on Form B22C, Chapter 13 debtor may not deduct mortgage payment on undersecured mortgage that has been stripped because it is virtually certain that debtor will not be making the mortgage payment after confirmation.
In re Meyers, 431 B.R. 823 (July 2010) -- Judge Kelley
Debtors who inadvertently omitted tax refund from Schedules could amend Schedules and claim refund as exempt, when Trustee could not prove by clear and convincing evidence that refund was concealed or creditors were prejudiced.
In re Arnhoelter, 431 B.R. 453 (July 2010) -- Judge Kelley
Debtor could not claim Wisconsin homestead exemption in property that was owned by Debtor's LLC when judgment was docketed.
Dandridge v. Aurora Health Care, Inc., No. 09-2469 (January 2010) -- Judge Kelley
Equitable remand of removed state court litigation was not ordered when case involved core bankruptcy proceeding and interpretation of bankruptcy court's confirmation order. Plaintiff's request for a jury trial, if appropriate, could be accommodated.
Ortiz v. Aurora Health Care, Inc., 422 B.R. 161 (January 2010) -- Judge Kelley
Even though adversary proceeding involved alleged violation of state statute, mandatory abstention was not appropriate for core proceeding and when there was no pending state court action, and permissive abstention was denied when bankruptcy court would be called upon to interpret its confirmation order.
Christenson v. Lee (In re Lee), 415 B.R. 367 (September 2009) -- Judge Kelley
Debtor's discharge was not denied where records kept by Debtor were appropriate for types of business in which he engaged, and omissions from Schedules appeared inadvertent, but debt based on false representations made in inducing creditor to purchase nontransferable weapons was held not dischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A).
In re Thongta, 2009 Bankr. LEXIS 1428 (June 2009) -- Judge Kelley
Co-debtor stay of § 1301 did not serve to stay enforcement of the debt because it was not a debt "of the debtor." Further, the stay did not protect the non-filing spouse from collection activities stemming from her own personal liability.
In re Nelsen, 404 B.R. 892 (April 2009) -- Judge Kelley
Debtor's age and downturn in economy did not constitute "exceptional circumstances" to justify discharge of student loan.
In re Dionne, 402 B.R. 883 (April 2009) -- Judge Kelley
In calculating disposable income, Chapter 13 debtors could deduct secured payments that were contractually due on the date of the petition, even though they intended to surrender the collateral.