In assessing whether a debtor’s bankruptcy case was filed in good faith for the purpose of Code § 362(c)(3)(B), courts have considered the following non-exhaustive list of factors: (1) the timing of the petition, (2) how the debtor’s debts arose, (3) the debtor’s motive, (4) how the debtor’s actions affected creditors, (5) why the debtor’s previous case was dismissed, (6) the likelihood that the debtor will have steady income throughout the case and will be able to fund a plan, and (7) whether any party objects to the motion. The debtor established that his Chapter 13 case was filed in good faith for the purpose of Code § 362(c)(3)(B), where the debtor showed that he was unable to fulfill his obligations in his prior Chapter…

As reported by Robin Miller of CBAR, in In re Moore, 2014 WL 4855011 (Bankr. W.D. Mich., Sept. 23, 2014), the Chapter 13 debtor’s balloon mortgage had matured prepetition, and the debtor did not show that she would be able to refinance the mortgage within a reasonable time, the court granted the mortgage creditor’s motion for relief from stay under Code § 362(d)(2), as the court found that the debtor had not met her burden of establishing that the property was necessary to an effective reorganization that was “in prospect.” (case no. 1:14-bk-4745) (Chief Bankruptcy Judge Scott W. Dales)

Yes. As reported by Robin Miller of CBAR, in In re Ulrich, 517 B.R. 77 (Bankr. E.D. Mich., Sept. 5, 2014), Chief Bankruptcy Judge Phillip J. Shefferly, held that despite the Chapter 13 debtor’s law firm’s “demonstrated skill and expertise in many bankruptcy cases before this Court, and its success in confirming the second amended plan in this case,” the court awarded the firm $5,375 in fees for pre-confirmation work, rather than the $7,784.50 requested, since, given the absence of any difficult or complex issues, and taking into account all of the other factors specified in Code §§330(a)(3), (4), the court found that 20–25 hours represented a range of the reasonable number of hours needed to represent the debtor in the case through confirmation of…

No. In In re Larson-Asplund, 519 B.R. 682 (Bankr. E.D. Mich., Oct. 8, 2014), Chief Bankruptcy Judge Phillip J. Shefferly held that the Chapter 13 debtor was not judicially estopped from asserting that his obligation, under the terms of a consent judgment entered in the debtor’s earlier divorce case, to pay one-half of his children’s college expenses was not in the nature of a support obligation, although the debtor had claimed during the state-court proceedings that the obligation was in the nature of support, where the debtor was unsuccessful in the state-court proceedings. Judicial estoppel applies only where the prior court adopted the debtor’s contrary position. Under In re Sorah, 163 F.3d 397 (6th Cir. 1998), a bankruptcy court, in determining whether a debtor’s obligation…

No. As reported by Robin Miller of CBAR, a Debtor has burden of proving that Chapter 13 plan was proposed in good faith after issue is raised. Once the issue of a Chapter 13 debtor’s good faith has been raised by the trustee, a party in interest or the court, the debtor has the burden of proof to establish his good faith. In re Caldwell, 895 F.2d 1123 (6th Cir. 1990). In In re Larson-Asplund, 519 B.R. 682 (Bankr. E.D. Mich., Oct. 8, 2014), the court held that multiple non-exclusive factors must be considered in determining whether Chapter 13 plan was proposed in good faith. To determine whether a Chapter 13 plan is proposed in good faith under Code § 1325(a)(3), courts have considered a…

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 to two proofs of claim filed for time-barred claims, despite the Chapter 13 trustee’s objection that the value to the estate was little more than the amount of the fees awarded. The debtors’ attorney did realize a net economic benefit of $1,373 for the estate even if all the fees requested were rewarded, and the court noted that stale claims were creating feasibility problems in more cases, and claims were…

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, which required that her financial situation be likely to persist for a significant part of the repayment period, although she was in good health and her earnings were rising, and the student loan creditor asserted that she might have additional funds in seven or eight years when her children reached the age of majority. The debtor did not have money or time to complete courses of study in order to…