Court found judicial lien on chapter 13 debtors' homestead was avoidable to extent trust monies were not traceable to homestead. Wisconsin law regarding exception to homestead exemption statute was discussed. Additionally, Court noted that exemption by default under section 522(l) did not appy in the context of lien avoidance. Note: This is a Court Minutes Decision, only.
After above-median income debtor's income decreased below the applicable median income following confirmation, he sought to reduce the plan duration to a period less than 60 months without also providing for full repayment to unsecured creditors. The trustee opposed confirmation of the modified plan. The court overruled the objection in part and sustained the objection in part. A postconfirmation modification could reduce the applicable commitment period, provided the change in circumstances inhibited the debtor's ability to fund the plan through the end of the original term, a determination which required further evidence.
Defendants' motions to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion for summary judgment, were denied. The debtor's complaint seeking damages for alleged violations of the automatic stay stated a claim upon which relief could be granted. Additionally, the bankruptcy court had personal jurisdiction over the individual debtor and facts in dispute precluded summary judgment.
Chapter 13 trustee objected to confirmation of modified plan on grounds it did not provide for payment of all projected disposable income. The Court overruled the objection, finding the cash surrender value increase of the debtors' whole life insurance policy over the life of the plan was not disposable income to be paid as an additional dividend to unsecured creditors.
Plaintiff home restoration contractor filed motion for summary judgment on grounds that prior state court judgment against chapter 13 debtors for failure to pay insurance proceeds after repairs were made to their residence should be given preclusive effect. The motion was granted because the previous trial and appellate court findings were sufficient to find the obligation nondischargeable under section 523(a)(4).
Plaintiff subcontractor's motion for summary judgment on grounds that chapter 13 debtor prime contractor breached his duties under Wisconsin's theft by contractor statute and the resulting debt was nondischargeable under section 523(a)(4) was denied. Standards established by Supreme Court required the court to make a finding regarding the debtor's state of mind while acting in a fiduciary capacity, a determination ill-suited for summary judgment.
Plaintiff subcontractors filed motions for summary judgment on the grounds that the chapter 7 debtor general contractor breached his fiduciary duties under Wisconsin's theft by contractor statute and the resulting debt was nondischargeable under section 523(a)(4). Plaintiffs also argued a previous state court default judgment should be given preclusive effect. The motions were denied because the matter had not been actually litigated in state court and the bankruptcy court was required to assess the debtor's state of mind while acting in a fiduciary capacity.
The US Department of Agriculture, Rural Housing Service's motion for relief from the automatic stay to effectuate a setoff of the chapter 7 debtors' tax refund against a dischargeable loan guarantee loss claim obligation was granted.
Chapter 11 individual debtor filed counterclaims against the plaintiff bank for damages to the debtor's apartment complex while under the management and control of the bank. Bank's motion to dismiss counterclaims was granted because debtor, as guarantor, did not have standing under the guaranty; the claims against the bank belonged to the borrower, the debtor's LLC.
Although the chapter 7 debtor was assigned payment of joint credit card obligations under the parties' Marital Settlement Agreement, after the debtor stopped making payments and the default was reported negatively on her former spouse's credit report, the former spouse made the credit card payments. The court rejected the debtor's argument that, because the creditor had not sued or threated legal action against her former spouse, she was not liable to reimburse her former spouse for his "voluntary" payments. The debtor's responsibility to hold her former spouse harmless became a nondischargeable obligation under sec. 523(a)(15) when the judgment incorporating the MSA was granted.