OpinionsDefendant bank was granted summary judgment on fraudulent transfer cause of action; defense of accord and satisfaction was inapplicable because the amount the debtors owed the bank at the time of the prepetition transfer was not in dispute. In re David & Christine LeFeber, Case No. 05-28540 (May 2006) -- Judge M.D. McGarity Debtors plan, which proposed to contribute such portion of $15,000 proceeds of sale of real estate as necessary to complete the plan, failed to meet the requirements of 11 U.S.C. s. 1325(b)(1)(B). In re Racette, 343 B.R. 200 (May 2006) -- Judge S.V. Kelley Debtors' request to strike petition that was filed without Section 109(h) credit briefing certificate was denied. Instead, case was dismissed, and counted as a case for purposes of Section 362(c)(3). In re Xiong, No 05-43121-svk (May 2006) -- Judge S.V. Kelley Property that debtor owned with non-filing spouse when they moved to Wisconsin was not marital property, and non-filing spouse's interest was not property of the estate. As to property that did constitute marital property, debtor was entitled to exempt the full amount of the equity (up to the value of the federal exemptions) not just one-half. In Re Kinnee, 06-21356 (May 2006) -- Judge P. Pepper Debtors whose debt is primarily business debt, rather than consumer debt, are not required to file Form B22A (the means test calculations). For a debtor to have debt that is "primarily" business debt, the business debt must comprise more than 50% of the overall debt. In re Przybylski, 340 B.R. 624 (April 2006) -- Judge S.V. Kelley Debtors' pre-bankruptcy planning included potentially avoidable transfers, and at least some of the exemptions were created with extrinsic signs of fraud. The Debtors' plan could not be confirmed due to failure of the best interest of creditors test, and, under the totality of the circumstances, the plan was not proposed in good faith. In Re Adams, 06-20190 (April 2006) -- Judge P. Pepper It was inappropriate for a bank to require a debtor to execute a reaffirmation agreement as a condition of re-activating her credit card, when debtor did not owe a debt to the bank and the bank did not hold a claim in the bankruptcy. In Re Berntsen, 06-20644 (April 2006) -- Judge P. Pepper Section 362(d)(4) of BAPCPA provides that in cases where the court finds that the debtor filed the petition as part of a scheme to hinder, delay or defraud creditors by multiple bankruptcy filings involving real property, if the order lifting the stay on the real property is recorded in compliance with state laws governing notices of interest or liens on real property, the order lifting the stay runs with the property and remains in effect as to anyone who files bankruptcy regarding that property for a period of two years after the date of the order, unless the subsequent filer can demonstrate a change in circumstances or good cause. In re Russell & Donna Nelson, Case No. 05-40908 (March 2006) -- Judge M.D. McGarity Debtors' claim of exemption of land contract payments as business property was disallowed. Debtors were allowed an exemption in 75% of the interest, but not principal due and owing under land contract as of the petition date; instead limited to interest due for one week and to extent reasonably necessary for support of debtors. Any claimed amount in excess was disallowed. In Re Perkins, 05-45816 (March 2006) -- Judge P. Pepper Section 1325(a) of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 does not abrogate the Supreme Court's holding in Till v. SCS Credit Corporation as it relates to vehicles purchased for the debtor's personal use within 910 days of the bankruptcy filing. The 'hanging paragraph' of section 1325(a) does away with the practice of bifurcating claims into secured and unsecured portions; it does not alter the Till rate on post-petition interest. |