Search Opinions
Judge Keywords
Total: 401

In re Gerald & Margaret Tevz, Case No. 01-30923, Debtors v. Milwaukee County, Adv. No. 07-2146 (April 2008) -- Judge McGarity

County's actions in attempting to collect, post-discharge, interest on property taxes which was not paid through the chapter 13 plan  was not a violation of the discharge injunction.  (This decision is a court minute decision, only.)


In re Lacey K. Rither, Case No. 05-23558 (April 2008) -- Judge McGarity

In pre-BAPCPA case, chapter 13 debtor was not allowed to modify plan to limited payments of one half of tax refunds to only the first three years of the newly-extended plan.


In re Spraggins, 386 B.R. 221 (April 2008) -- Judge Kelley
Below-median Chapter 13 debtor's projected disposable income is determined by Form B22C not Schedule I, and tax refunds need not be dedicated if debtor deducts actual taxes incurred from income.

In re Crego, 387 B.R. 225 (April 2008) -- Judge Kelley
Married debtors who filed joint petition but were living separately and in the process of divorce could claim expenses of second household as "special circumstances" but the expenses of that household were limited to the appropriate National and Local Standards.

In re Melanie Collins (March 2008) -- Judge Shapiro

Creditor’s motion to dismiss case because of debtor’s failure to provide creditor with a copy of her most recent federal income tax return was denied. The court concluded that the creditor had the ability to obtain the requested tax return by other means, including use of§ 521(g)(2), and that dismissal of case would be unduly harsh.


In Re Van Bodegom Smith, 07-25202 (March 2008) -- Judge Pepper

Above-median-income Chapter 13 debtors cannot subtract from their current monthly income secured debt payments for collateral they intend to surrender when calculating their projected disposal income.


In re Melvin M. Kalata, Case No. 07-21710 (February 2008) -- Judge McGarity

Chapter 13 debtor was not allowed to take a deduction on Means Test for "future payments on secured claims" for surrendered residence.


In re Roger & Roberta Clark, Case No. 07-23390 (February 2008) -- Judge McGarity

Chapter 13 debtors were allowed to take a vehicle ownership expense deduction for a vehicle they owned free and clear.


In re Dunlap (January 2008) -- Judge Shapiro

The court held that the use of negative equity financing by the parties in connection with the purchase of a new car and trade-in of an another vehicle did not destroy the purchase money nature of Nissan’s PMSI. The court found that there was a close nexus between the debtors’ acquisition of the new car and the entire secured obligation, which included the negative equity financing. Therefore, pursuant to the hanging paragraph contained in 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a), the debtors could not cram down the secured lender’s claim into a secured claim and an unsecured claim under 11 U.S.C. § 506.


In re Boehlke, 2008 Bankr. LEXIS 235 (January 2008) -- Judge Kelley
Debtors' vehicle lease payments are not payments on secured claim and cannot be deducted as secured claim payments on Line 42 or 23(b) of Form B22A. Debtor can deduct ownership/lease expenses on Line 23(a).

17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 21 of 41