OpinionsIn a pre-BAPCPA case, after secured vehicle was totally destroyed in an accident, secured creditor's recovery of insurance proceeds was limited to the amount of the allowed secured claim (net of payments received under the plan) as determined by Debtor's confirmed chapter 13 plan. Plan provided that property did not revest in debtor at confirmation; accordingly excess proceeds had to be paid to the Trustee. In re Bernard & Mary Guelig, Case No. 05-33634 (June 2006) -- Judge M.D. McGarity Due to court's findings of fact regarding value of debtors' real estate and amount due under land contract, debtors' objection to trustee's intent to sell property was overruled. In Re Pham, 06-20779 (May 2006) -- Judge P. Pepper Discussion of the circumstances under which courts will require reaffirmation hearings under BAPCPA. In re Jeffrey & Penny Munsch, Case No. 05-23178, Neil McKloskey, Trustee v. Guaranty Bank, Adversary No. 05-2437 (May 2006) -- Judge M.D. McGarity Defendant 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. |