OpinionsDebtor borrowed vehicle without permission and damaged the vehicle. Resulting debt to insurance company was dischargeable under § 523(a)(6). Blomberg, et al -v- Riley (In re Elizabeth F. Riley) (July 2006) -- Judge J.E. Shapiro The court denied the debtor's discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2)(B) by applying the reverse alter ego theory and finding that the debtor's failure to list certain real estate owned by a corporation in which the debtor was the majority and controlling shareholder and which had significant personal value to her, constituted a concealment of estate property with the intent to defraud the bankruptcy trustee. The court also denied the debtor's discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(4)(A), and found that the debtor's listing of her corporate stock interest at a zero value in her schedules constituted a false oath. In re Kirchen, 344 B.R. 908 (July 2006) -- Judge S.V. Kelley Inherited IRA is not exempt as a retirement benefit under Wis. Stat. § 815.18(3)(j). In re Rick E. Larson, Case No. 04-34605, Larry Liebzeit, Trustee v. Universal Mortgage Corporation v. Debtor, Adversary No. 05-2030 Published: In re Larson, 346 B.R. 486 (June 2006) -- Judge M.D. McGarity Chapter 7 trustee brought an adversary proceeding to avoid lender's mortgage lien. The court granted the lender's motion for summary judgment. The prepetition mortgage was invalid due to the failure of the debtor's spouse to sign the mortgage. Nevertheless, the secured creditor was equitably subrogated to the earlier mortgage, and the trustee as a hypothetical bona fide purchaser did not defeat its rights under that mortgage. In Re Spears, 06-21015 (June 2006) -- Judge P. Pepper Section 109(h) of BAPCPA does not require a debtor to wait a day between the day she obtains her credit briefing and the day she files her petition for relief. A debtor who obtains the credit briefing at any time during the 180 days prior to the moment she files her petition has complied with section 109(h). In re Estrada, No. 03-33013-svk (unpublished) (June 2006) -- Judge S.V. Kelley In a pre-BAPCPA case, after secured vehicle was totally destroyed in an accident, secured creditor's recovery of insurance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). |