Source: https://opinions.abi.org/8th-circuit/missouri/western-district/judge-dow?page=4
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 03:55:27+00:00

Document:
The United States Trustee filed a motion to dismiss a chapter 7 debtors' case pursuant to 11 U.S.C.S. § 707(b)(3).
Case ordered dismissed or converted to chapter 13 for abuse and bad faith after adjustments to claimed expenses.
The debtors filed for relief under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, which was converted to a proceeding under chapter 13. A creditor who held a lease with the debtor filed an application for an administrative expense claim under 11 U.S.C.S. § 365(d)(3). The creditor also filed an objection to confirmation of the debtors'amended chapter 13 plan.
Lessor creditor was not entitled to an administrative expense claim for outstanding rent under lease deemed rejected before chapter 7 was converted to chapter 13.
Appellant debtor had challenged an order of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, modifying the automatic stay issued pursuant to 11 U.S.C.S. § 362 and remanding previously removed tax proceedings to an Illinois state court for further consideration on a finding that abstention was proper. Appellee creditor moved to dismiss the appeal as moot.
Appeal of abstention ruling dismissed as moot where underlying bankruptcy case had been dismissed.
Plaintiff judgment creditor brought an adversary proceeding against defendant debtor, seeking a declaration that a judgment debt was nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C.S. 523(a)(6). The creditor moved for summary judgment.
Defamation judgment was not based on sufficient facts for finding of nondischargeability on grounds of malicious conduct.
Plaintiff debtor filed a complaint against defendant creditor for a willful violation of the automatic stay provisions of 11 U.S.C.S. § 362(a). The creditor denied that collection of funds that had been sequestered was a violation of the automatic stay and contended that any violation of the stay was not willful under 11 U.S.C.S. § 362(k)(1). The parties filed motions for summary judgment.
Collection of sequestered wages was not a violation of stay but sequestration and collection of postpetition wages was a violation.
A chapter 13 trustee moved to deny confirmation of the debtors' chapter 13 plan on the grounds that the plan failed to comply with 11 U.S.C.S. § 1325(b). The trustee alleged that the plan did not propose to pay to unsecured creditors the amount required by § 1325(b) as reflected on the debtors' Form 22C.
Section 1325(b) does not violate equal protection clause of Fifth Amendment as applied to above-median debtors unable to pay unsecured creditors the amount reflected on Form 22C.
Plaintiff creditor filed a complaint against defendant chapter 7 debtor, seeking to deny the debtor a discharge with respect to the amount owed to the creditor pursuant to 11 U.S.C.S. § 523(a)(2)(B) and seeking to deny the debtor a discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C.S. § 727(a)(3) and /or § 727(a)(5).
Discharge denied due to financially sophisticated debtor's failure to keep adequate records.
The chapter 13 trustee moved to deny confirmation of the debtors' chapter 13 plan, objecting to the plan on the ground that it failed to comply with the disposable income commitment requirement of 11 U.S.C.S. § 1325(b) because the debtors' plan proposed to deduct from their income payments on indebtedness secured by real estate which they proposed to surrender.
Payments on debt secured by property intended for surrender could not be deducted from disposable income calculation.
The chapter 13 Trustee moved to deny confirmation of the chapter 13 plans of two below-median income debtors, on the grounds that each plan failed to comply with provisions of 11 U.S.C.S. § 1325(b). At issue was how the court should determine projected disposable income for such debtors, and if, under the applicable formula the debtor's disposable income was negative, was the applicable commitment period necessary.
Below median debtors not required to commit any particluar sum of money to plan and not bound by any applicable commitment period.
Brown v. American Educ. Servs. Inc.
Plaintiff debtor filed an action against defendant creditors for a determination pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) that the debtor's student loan obligation owed to the creditor should be discharged. The debtor claimed that excepting the loan from discharge would impose an undue hardship.
Read more about Brown v. American Educ. Servs. Inc.
Debtor whose sole income was social security and unemployment granted undue hardship discharge of student loan debt.

References: § 707
 § 365
 § 362
 § 362
 § 362
 § 1325
 § 1325
 § 523
 § 727
 § 727
 § 1325
 § 1325
 v. 
 § 523
 v.