The Debtors filed cross-motions for summary judgment based on the affirmative defense set forth in their answers: that Chase's security interest never attached to the funds paid to the IRS because they were trust funds that were not property of JMS. 2258, 110 L. Ed. 2d 46 (1990). [T]he issue ...
, To require all debtors to propose plans paying the number resulting from Form B22C would essentially ignore the word projected and give meaning to only the term disposable income.
, On December 4, 2007, upon the stipulation of the parties, the bankruptcy court entered an agreed judgment finding that Cassim is entitled to a hardship discharge of her student loan obligation to ECMC when the bankruptcy court enters a discharge order in the case. See Hoffer v. Am.
), The bankruptcy court found that Schaeffer's 30-day downward adjustment was understandable, and that his testimony and analysis was credible and sound., Agripool failed to show any reliable data regarding the industry standards for the timing of payments on international transactions.
The court was concerned that B-Line, a company that exclusively purchases claims in bankruptcy, does not request copies of originating documents before filing a proof of claim despite the requirement in Rule 3001(c) and Official Form 10 that such documents be attached to proofs of claim.
1023, 157 L. Ed. 2d 1024). As in the statute that incorporates these standards into the means test, there is nothing in the IRS Local Standards that states that this expense can be deducted only when the debtor has either a debt payment or a lease payment on the vehicle. See Wilson, 383 B.R.
In those instances in which the plan proponent contemplates issuance of a note to the secured creditor who elected § 1111(b) treatment, in an amount equivalent to the creditor's claim, § 1129 may not mandate that the interest rate be based on a market rate or the formulaic rate espoused by Till.
363 (2008), In re Ronald ANDERSON, Debtor-Appellant., In the present case, Anderson submitted a document from a prison official stating that the prison would allow him to make a telephone call to a credit counseling agency if it were directed to do so by court order.
, The bankruptcy court's order denying the motion to withdraw the court's order to appear and show cause why Armstrong's pro hac vice admission should not be revoked as moot is a final appealable order reviewed de novo. Buckeye Ret. 1249, 108 L. Ed. 2d 400 (1990).
397 B.R. 544 (2008), IN RE FUSCO., COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., v., TERLECKY., No. 08-8028, 07-55828., United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Sixth Circuit., September 19, 2008., Decision without published opinion. Affirmed.
407 B.R. 442 (2008), IN RE SMITH., CONLEY, v., SMITH., Nos. 08-8021, 06-60396., United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Sixth Circuit., December 30, 2008., Decision without published opinion. Affirmed.
I. ISSUE ON APPEAL, The issue raised in this consolidated appeal is whether the bankruptcy court erred in holding that above-median income Debtors may claim secured debt expense deductions for collateral they intend to surrender through their chapter 13 plans. Tidewater Fin.
397 B.R. 544 (2008), IN RE BOYD., BOYD, v., RABIN., No. 08-8010, 05-19361., United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Sixth Circuit., September 23, 2008., Decision without published opinion. Affirmed.
Stated differently, the estate's property interest in the bank funds was transferred to Buckeye when the Debtor's check was honored. 1612, 44 L. Ed. 2d 141 (1975) (attorney fees not recoverable absent specific statutory authority). if they are unable to do so, the bankruptcy court will decide.
A dispute developed between the Debtor and Holiday Inn regarding the PIP. The testimony presented to the bankruptcy court at the hearing on the Trust's fee application reflects that local counsel, Williams Prochaska, had discounted its hourly fee for this engagement by 20 percent.
391 B.R. 210 (2008), IN RE BROWN, BROWN, v., MOYER., Nos. 07-8061, 07-8066, 06-05085., United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Sixth Circuit., June 11, 2008., Decision without published opinion. Affirmed and Remanded.
385 B.R. 799 (2008), IN RE NEWMAN;, OLMSTEAD, v., NEWMAN., No. 07-8050, 05-14139, 06-0181A., United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit., March 28, 2008., Decision without published opinion. Affirmed.
A bankruptcy court's final order may be appealed as of right., In addition to the Sixth Circuit's published decisions in Parmenter, Adkins, and Nolan, the court of appeals has also specifically addressed the binding effect of a confirmed plan under § 1327(a) in Welch, an unpublished decision.
397 B.R. 544 (2008), IN RE KING., BAKER, v., MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., No. 07-8045, 05-24988., United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Sixth Circuit., August 20, 2008., Decision without published opinion. Affirmed.
While venue orders such at the one at issue here are not ordinarily final, the bankruptcy court's further judgment in favor of the Trustee on the preference action has left the court with nothing more to do. 1249, 108 L. Ed. 2d 400 (1990). Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U.S. 498, 515, 31 S. Ct.
