Source: https://opinions.abi.org/6th-circuit/ohio/northern-district?page=54
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 10:57:06+00:00

Document:
Plaintiff, a discharged bankruptcy debtor, brought an adversary proceeding against defendant creditor, alleging that a discharged debt to the creditor was still being reported to credit agencies, in violation of the discharge injunction provided by 11 U.S.C. § 524. The creditor moved for summary judgment, and the debtor did not respond to the motion.
Debtor failed to show that a creditor had violated a discharge injunction by continuing to report a discharged debt to credit agencies.
Read more about In re Kennedy Mfg.
A law firm representing a bankruptcy debtor submitted its final application for compensation and reimbursement of expenses. The U.S. trustee objected to the application on the grounds that certain of the firm's services did not benefit the estate, time spent with a financial advisor was not compensable, and the firm engaged in overstaffing.
Debtor's attorneys were granted most of their fees over the trustee's objection that their services did not benefit the estate since the fees were reasonably calculated to benefit the estate when they were performed.
Bankruptcy debtors, a husband and wife, claimed a homestead exemption in their residence to which the wife held sole legal title, including the husband's dower interest in the property. Creditors, the debtors'mortgagees, objected to the exemption.
Debtors were only entitled to a homestead exemption as to the property's legal title in relation to the trustee's interest pursuant to the debtor husband's dower interest, but the debtors' homestead exemption was disallowed as to the property's equitable interest since the creditor's mortgage existed premarriage and thus was superior to the claimed exemption.
Plaintiff chapter 7 trustee commenced an adversary proceeding against defendants, creditors, seeking to recover certain prepetition transfers made by the debtor. The creditors moved for summary judgment, alleging that the trustee's claims were time barred under 11 U.S.C. § 546.
Creditor was denied summary judgment where the court ruled it could decide the date an order for relief triggered two-year limitations period for filing creditor's complaint.
Plaintiff creditor filed a complaint to determine the dischargeability of a debt owed by defendant debtor. The creditor brought this suit pursuant to the statutory exception to discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).
Creditor failed to establish that debtor intentionally misrepresented the purpose of a loan and thus loan debt was deemed dischargeable.
Plaintiff ex-wife brought a complaint pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15) to determine the dischargeability of a marital debt assumed by defendant debtor.
Debtor's assumption of marital credit card debt was deemed nondischargeable.
The debtors filed a petition for relief under chapter 7 of the Code. The debtors filed a motion for an order directing the turnover of monies held by a creditor. The creditor filed an objection to the motion. The court treated the matter as an action for a violation of the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362, pursuant to the court's authority under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a), together with Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7015 and 9014.
Creditor did not violate automatic stay when the debtors made postpetition payments on a collateralized debt that was to be reaffirmed but had not yet been reaffirmed.

References: § 524
 § 546
 § 523
 § 523
 § 362
 § 105