OpinionsA debtor who, at the time of the hearing on the trustee's motion to dismiss, lacks the ability to pay her creditors because she has not engaged in a broad employment search, does not wish to work outside her chosen field, does not wish to work within her chosen field outside of southeastern Wisconsin, and takes this position at the expense of her creditors, "abuses" the provisions of Chapter 7 as that term is used in the new version of section 707(b) promulgated by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. In re John D. Brill & Kimberly M. Quass-Brill, Case No. 06-21600 Published: In re Brill, 350 B.R. 853 (September 2006) -- Judge M.D. McGarity Creditor whose claim was secured by purchase-money security interest in motor vehicle that chapter 13 debtors had acquired for their personal use by debt incurred within 910 days of petition date objected to confirmation of the debtors' plan. The court sustained the objection, finding the Till analysis applied to establish the interest rate on the secured claim at "prime rate plus risk factor" over the life of the plan, even though the original contract provided for 0% interest. In Re Fuller, 06-30313. (Bankr. S.D. Il June 16, 2006) (September 2006) -- Judge P. Pepper In order to determine whether a Chapter 13 debtor is committing all of her "projected disposable income" to a plan under section 1325(b)(1)(B) of BAPCPA, parties must not limit their consideration to Form B22C ("Statement of Current Monthly Income and Calculation of Commitment Period and Disposable Income"), but must also consider the income at the time of filing as reflected on Schedule I. In Re Maxwell, 06-21226 (September 2006) -- Judge P. Pepper Under the facts and circumstances of these particular cases, one month after the date the debtors filed their petitions was too soon to conclude that the $2,500 presumptively reasonable fee charged by debtors' counsel was unreasonable. This is partly because one of the factors this Court considers in determining the reasonableness of the presumptively reasonable fee is the range of services counsel provides in exchange for the presumptively reasonable fee, and a month into the matter is too soon to determine whether counsel is providing a comprehensive range of services in exchange for the fee. In Re Baldewicz, 06-21117 (September 2006) -- Judge P. Pepper Under the facts and circumstances of these particular cases, one month after the date the debtors filed their petitions was too soon to conclude that the $2,500 presumptively reasonable fee charged by debtors' counsel was unreasonable. This is partly because one of the factors this Court considers in determining the reasonableness of the presumptively reasonable fee is the range of services counsel provides in exchange for the presumptively reasonable fee, and a month into the matter is too soon to determine whether counsel is providing a comprehensive range of services in exchange for the fee. In re Tina Dawn Hilbelink, Case No. 05-30111, Alma P. Leach v. Debtor, Adv. No. 06-2178 (September 2006) -- Judge M.D. McGarity State court judgment deemed nondischargeable pursuant to s. 523(a)(4) due to issue preclusion. In re FV Steel & Wire, 349 B.R. 181 (September 2006) -- Judge S.V. Kelley Judicial estoppel does not apply to block claim of debtor who had inadvertently neglected to schedule claim and who cured the omission as soon as she learned of it. Also, Trustee had succeeded to claim and was not judicially estopped by debtor's omission. In re Boden & Lundi Perry, Case No. 05-24027 (August 2006) -- Judge M.D. McGarity Debtor was allowed to exempt his interest in Simplified Money Purchase Keogh Plan under Wis. Stat. s. 815.18(3)(j). In re Anthony & Jennifer Rodriguez, Case No. 05-34551, Michael F. Dubis, Trustee v. Homecomings Financial Network, et al., Adv. No. 06-2028 (August 2006) -- Judge M.D. McGarity Trustee filed complaint to avoid mortgage as preferential transfer under s. 547(b). Trustee entitled to judgment; avoided mortgage was preserved for benefit of estate. Trustee was not entitled to recover the amount of payments received by defendant postpetition. In re Guzman, 345 B.R. 640 (July 2006) -- Judge S.V. Kelley Under BAPCPA ยง 1325(b)(3), reasonably necessary expenses to be deducted to determine disposable income of above-median debtors are based on Form B22C, not Schedule J. |