Yes. As reported by Robin Miller of CBAR, the Court in In re Alexander, 2014 WL 5449653 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn., Oct. 22, 2014) allowed Chapter 13 debtors’ attorney’s supplemental fee application for objections to stale claims. The court allowed the Chapter 13 debtors’ attorney’s supplemental fee application for $631.24 in fees and expenses for objecting…

Yes. As reported by Robin Miller of CBAR, a Debtor with limited earning capacity satisfied Brunner test for discharge of student loan debt. The 35-year-old Chapter 7 debtor, who was divorced with two minor children, satisfied the second, or “additional circumstances,” prong of the Brunner “undue hardship” test for the discharge of student loan debt,…

As reported by Robin Miller of CBAR, the Till rate is proper interest rate for 910-day-car claim in Chapter 13 plan. While the hanging paragraph added by BAPCPA to Code § 1325(a) prevents a 910-day-car claim from being stripped down to the value of the motor vehicle securing the claim, this did not prevent a…

No. As reported by Robin Miller of CBAR, a Court will decline to order substantive consolidation of Chapter 7 debtors with non-debtor LLC. Substantive consolidation, generally: Substantive consolidation is a judicially-created doctrine that treats separate legal entities as if they were merged into a single entity, pooling the assets and liabilities of the two entities,…

Yes. According to Robin Miller of CBAR, the granting of debtor’s motion to reopen case, for purpose of avoiding creditor’s lien, would be conditioned on debtor’s reimbursing creditor for expenses incurred as result of debtor’s delay. Generally, reopening a case for the purpose of avoiding judicial lien under Code § 522(f), Courts have long held…

Not in Ohio. As reported by Robin Miller of CBAR, under Ohio Rev. Code § 2329.66(A)(1)(b), which permits the exemption of “one parcel or item of real or personal property that the [debtor] … uses as a residence,” the debtors could claim a homestead exemption in two contiguous parcels where the debtors used both parcels…

No. As reported by Robin Miller of CBAR, the dismissal of the Chapter 7 debtor’s case for bad faith amounting to cause under Code § 707(a) was not warranted where there was no evidence that the debtor had concealed or misrepresented his own assets or income or that he lived or continued a lavish lifestyle…