In re Willems, 442 B.R. 918 (February 2011) -- Judge Kelley
Supreme Court's decision in Ransom (preventing deduction of ownership expense to vehicles owned free and clear) applies retroactively to plans that have been filed, but not confirmed, when decision was issued on January 11, 2011.
In re Hilgendorf, 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 429 (February 2011) -- Judge Kelley
Chapter 13 debtors could not apply tax refunds to shorten length of plan, rather tax refunds had to be applied to unsecured creditors.
In re George, 440 B.R. 164 (December 2010) -- Judge Kelley
Debtor who moved from Illinois to Wisconsin within 730 days of her petition could claim federal exemptions even though Illinois has opted out of the federal exemptions.
In re Kearney, 439 B.R. 694 (December 2010) -- Judge Kelley
Post-confirmation plan modification is subject to the good faith test of § 1325, and debtor whose income increased and expenses appeared to have been manipulated to justify lower plan payments did not satisfy good faith requirement.
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.