Chapter 7 trustee brought an adversary proceeding to avoid, on a preference theory, loan payments that the debtors had made to their parents during the one-year preference period. The court granted summary judgment to the parents because the prepetition transfers met the requirements for the new value defense.
Judgment for restitution was nondischargeable obligation pursuant to 11 U.S.C. s. 523(a)(7).
Damages assessed against defendant for violation of automatic stay.
Because secured creditor did not give up its right to foreclose on the mortgage when it sought and obtained a personal judgment against the debtors, the debtor's objection to the creditor's proof of claim was overruled.
Chapter 13 debtors objected to the proof of claim filed by a creditor, based on the retail value of the vehicle securing it when the petition was filed. The court sustained the objection in part. For purposes of determining the creditor's secured claim, the value of the vehicle damaged in a postpetition accident was established at liquidation value as of the petition date.
In preference adversary filed under sec. 547 and sec. 548, defendant transferee's motion for summary judgment was granted, in part, and denied, in part.
Chapter 13 Trustee's objection to priority claim filed by debtor on behalf of city for unpaid municipal services was sustained.
Debtor refinanced mortgage with defendant and subsequently filed for relief six days later. Defendant perfected mortgage twelve days after petition date. As mortgage was not perfected with the time allowed under sec. 547(e)(2)(A), the recording violated the automatic stay. Acts done in violation of the stay are void; therefore, the mortgage was unperfected at the time of filing.
Because plaintiff architects were not beneficiaries under state theft by contractor statute, the debtor's obligations to them were dischargeable.
In same case, the court previously determined presentation of post-dated check by the payee after payor filed bankruptcy, and resulting receipt of proceeds, was excepted from the automatic stay (see below). In this decision, the court found the retention of the proceeds after demand by the debtors was a violation of the stay. Because the creditor's conduct was egregious and intentional, the debtors were entitled to punitive damages.