Source: https://opinions.abi.org/homeview?page=1266
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 08:27:58+00:00

Document:
Plaintiff, the debtor's former spouse, filed an adversary proceeding against defendant debtor seeking a determination that his debt was nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(15).
Non-support property settlement obligations were excepted from discharge where benefit of discharge did not outweigh detriment to former spouse.
A trustee objected to a debtor's claim of federal exemptions under 11 U.S.C. § 522 in a chapter 7 case.
Debtor who was not eligible for exemptions in filing state due to insufficient residency or state of former residence could claim exemptions under bankruptcy code.
A debtor was required to appear and show cause why her chapter 13 bankruptcy case should not have been dismissed for failure to obtain the consumer credit counseling briefing required by 11 U.S.C. § 109(h)(1).
Chapter 13 case dismissed due to debtor's failure to obtain credit counseling or to establish exigent circumstances to justify a waiver.
The debtors'attorney was ordered to show cause why his fees should not have been disgorged, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 329 and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2017.
Attorney who regularly filed chapter 13 cases in district ordered to disgorge excessive fees in routine case.
Law firm that was a prominent filer of chapter 13 petitions ordered to disgorge excesive fees in routine cases.
Plaintiff debtor sought a determination that a student loan debt owed to defendant creditor was discharged pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727 rather than was nondischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8).
Chapter 11 creditors filed motions for judgment on the pleadings in their adversary proceedings, which alleged that the debts owed by debtor were not dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 523(a)(2)(A), (a)(4) and (a)(6). Debtor filed cross motions for summary judgment.
Arbitrator's finding of fraud did not estop debtor from arguing dischargeability of debt where issues and standards were not identical.
Appellant debtor appealed the opinion and order of the bankruptcy court which held that the debtor's Individual Retirement Account ("IRA") was neither excluded from the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541(c)(2) nor exempt under 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(10)(E). Appellee trustee opposed the appeal.
Bankruptcy court erred in concluding that IRA was not eligible for exemption.
In a bankruptcy case, which was the debtor's third bankruptcy filing in two years, the debtor moved to extend the automatic stay.
Bankruptcy court refused to extend stay in debtor's third filing in two years due to bad faith.
In companion chapter 13 cases, the standing chapter 13 trustee filed motions to dismiss the plans of debtors. The issue was whether Schedule J or Form B22C should be used to calculate "projected disposable income" for the debtors, whose earnings fell below the median family income, to be determined in accordance with 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(2).
Schedule J was to be used to calculate projected disposable income for debtors below median family income.
Chapter 13 trustee objected to the confirmation of debtors' plan on the grounds that the plan did not comply with 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a).
Confirmation denied where unsecured creditors would receive greater distribution in chapter 7.
Appellee bankruptcy trustee objected when appellant chapter 7 debtor claimed an exemption from the bankruptcy estate for his entire individual retirement account ("IRA"). The debtor appealed after the bankruptcy court sustained the objection and ruled that a portion of his IRA was not exempt under 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(10)(E).
Case remanded to bankruptcy court for determination as to whether IRA was reasonably necessary to support debtor and family and therefore partially exempt.
Debtor not meeting residency requirements for exemptions under law of filing state or and no longer eligible for exemptions under law of state of former residence could elect federal scheme.

References: § 523
 § 522
 § 109
 § 329
 § 727
 § 523
 § 541
 § 522
 § 1325
 § 1325
 § 522