The district court's decision in In re Ross-Tousey effectively overrules this Court's decision in In re Sawdy, and therefore Chapter 13 debtors may deduct the vehicle ownership expense on their Form B22C only if they have a note or loan payment, and not if they own a vehicle outright.
The court held that where a secured creditor files a proof of claim before confirmation, which is at odds with the debtor’s plan as to rate of interest, and the secured creditor fails to object to confirmation, the interest rate in the confirmed plan is controlling. The court also decided that the secured creditor was not denied due process. The argument raised by the secured creditor that established past practice in the Eastern District of Wisconsin required finding that the confirmed plan must yield to the proof of claim was rejected. The court stated that the established past practice was not as firmly entrenched as secured creditor suggested.
The court found that the refinancing lender did not perfect its security interest under Wis. Stat. § 342.19. The fact that the original certificate of title still had the lien of the fully paid original lender is no defense. The refinancing lender obtained a release from the original lender, and there was no assignment from the original lender to the refinancing lender.
Chapter 13 debtors sought to modify their confirmed plan, after experiencing significant medical expenses and a reduction in the debtor-husband's pay. The court sustained the trustee's objection to the modification, in part. The chapter 13 debtors were not allowed to retroactively modify their confirmed plan to retain one-half of their tax refunds previously committed to their creditors. Because the tax refunds were necessary for the maintenance and support of the debtors, they were allowed to prospectively retain their entire tax refunds.
Chapter 13 trustee was compelled to remit plan payments to the creditor holding a secured claim in the debtors' vehicle pending resolution of the motion for relief from the automatic stay.
Chapter 13 debtor objected to her former landlord's proof of claim. The court sustained the objection, in part, finding the residential landlord's claim for prepetition and postpetition rent did not qualify as an administrative expense under sec. 503(b).
The debtor filed a Chapter 13 case and subsequently converted that case to Chapter 7, wherein she received a discharge . More than two years but less than four years later, the debtor filed a new Chapter 13 case. The court ruled that the four-year waiting period contained within 11 U.S.C. § 1328(f)(1) was applicable to this fact pattern (rather than the two-year waiting period contained within 11 U.S.C. § 1328(f)(2)). Accordingly, the court found that the debtor was ineligible to receive a discharge in the present bankruptcy case because four years had not elapsed since the filing of her prior bankruptcy case.