Because Code § 506(a) states that “[a]n allowed claim of a creditor secured by a lien on property in which the estate has an interest … is a secured claim to the extent of the value of such creditor’s interest in the estate’s interest in such property,” a claim may be valued under § 506(a) only where the claim has been allowed. As a result, a Chapter 13 debtor cannot value a claim under § 506(a) where the creditor has not filed a proof of claim and the debtor has not filed a proof of claim on behalf of the creditor as allowed under Code § 501(c). See In re King, 165 B.R. 296 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1994); In re Callahan, 251 B.R. 170 (Bankr….

Yes, according to a recent decision from the ND of Illinios, the Court reld on the 10th Ciruict holding in In re Dixon, 218 B.R. 150 (10th Cir. B.A.P. 1998). The Illinois Bankruptcy Court held that a claim that is treated in the debtor’s plan will be “provided for” in the plan and discharged under Code § 1328(a) even where, due to the creditor’s failure to file a proof of claim, the Chapter 13 trustee does not make any payments on the claim.

Chapter 13 debtor may strip unsecured lien under Code § 1322(b)(2), but not § 506(d). Further, stripping an unsecured lien in Chapter 13 requires that debtor receive discharge. A lien cannot be avoided before the Chapter 13 debtor’s discharge is entered.

In a recent Wisconsin cae, the Bankrupcy Court said no. The creditors failed to show that the debtor’s potential social-host liability for the death of a partygoer in an automobile accident was the result of a willful and malicious injury by the debtor that would be nondischargeable under Code § 523(a)(6). In re Weihert, 2013 WL 485878 (Bankr. W.D. Wis., Feb. 6, 2013)

In Seaport v Burden, a 6th Circuit case from 2012, the Court held that Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code permits individuals with regular income can keep their property if they agree to a court-approved plan to pay creditors out of their future “disposable income. The Code requires, however, that a Chapter 13 plan can be confirmed only if  the debtor contributes “all … projected disposable income., to the plan.” The question answered by the Court is whether income that becomes available after the debtors   have fully repaid their 40l(k) loans  is “Projected Disposable Income” or whether that income can be used to begin making voluntary contributions to the debtors’ 401(k) plans. We hold that post-petition income that becomes available to debtors after their 40l(k)…

In a recent case in the Western District of Michigan, a Bankruptcy judge ruled that the US Government had the right to set off a debt under 11 USC 553 even when the Setoff was listed as an asset and exempted under 11 USC 522. The Judge ruled that 11 USC 553 Setoff provision trumps the voidable preference provision of 11 USC 547. In this case, the USDA had foreclosed on a government sponsored mortgage and assessed a deficiency against the debtor. The court held that the federal government is a unified creditor (IRS took the money, but USDA was the creditor) so there was mutuality of obligation. But, if you file Bankruptcy BEFORE your tax return is submitted, the debt would be discharged and…

The test for judicial estoppel in Sixth Circuit was set forth in Stephenson v. Malloy, 700 F.3d 265 (6th Cir., Oct. 30, 2012). The Stephenson court stated: To support a finding of judicial estoppel, the court must find that: (1) the debtor assumed a position that was contrary to the one that he asserted under oath in the bankruptcy proceedings; (2) the bankruptcy court adopted the contrary position either as a preliminary matter or as part of a final disposition; and (3) the omission did not result from mistake or inadvertence. In determining whether the debtor’s conduct resulted from mistake or inadvertence, the court must consider whether: (1) he lacked knowledge of the factual basis of the undisclosed claim; (2) he had a motive for concealment;…