Yes. Parent Plus loans do not qualify for any income driven repayment plan. However, if you consolidate the loans into a qualifying loan, you can apply for an income contingent repayment plan.

It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. An Oklahoma bankruptcy court held that a judgment creditor could not pierce the corporate veil under Oklahoma law to hold the Chapter 7 debtor personally liable, as the sole owner of an LLC, for the creditor’s judgment debt against the LLC, in a proceeding to hold the debt nondischargeable under Code § 523(a)(2)(A)). In re Thompson, 585 B.R. 890 (Bankr. W.D. Okla., Dec. 21, 2017)

No. In a recent Illinois case, the court held that the Chapter 13 debt limits were determined by schedules filed in good faith, not by amount of thecreditor’s proof of claims. If your secured debts (mortgages and liens) add up to more that $1,184,200, or your unsecured debts add up to more than $394,725, Chapter 13 may not be available to you; you may have to file a Chapter 11 proceeding. While the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals had never addressed the proper method for deciding eligibility for Chapter 13, the majority rule is that eligibility depends entirely on the amounts shown in the debtor’s schedules; other evidence is considered only to ensure that the schedules were prepared in good faith. In this recent case,…

Yes. An Illinois Court held that a Debtor’s obligation to repay her former father-in-law who had co-signed her student loans prepetition was postpetition debt that was not discharged: Even though the Chapter 7 debtor’s former father-in-law co-signed her student loans prepetition, the debtor’s obligation to repay her former father-in-law for his postpetition payments on the debts was a postpetition debt that was not discharged. Based on the facts and state law, the court held that when the debtor missed a post-discharge payment on the loans, the former father-in-law’s was contacted and made a payment. At that point, the former father-in-law became entitled to repayment from the debtor. Accordingly, the former father-in-law did not violate the discharge injunction by attempting to collect from the debtor for…

No. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Chapter 7 trustee could not use the strong-arm powers under Code § 544(a) to avoid a state divorce court’s award to the debtor’s former wife of his one-half interest in the former marital residence as part of the divorce court’s distribution of marital property. The state court made the award post-petition in a divorce proceeding commenced pre-petition. The Court reasoned that when the debtor’s former wife filed for divorce, she and the debtor were each vested with contingent interests in the entire marital home. The debtor thus no longer owned a simple half-interest in the house; instead, after the divorce proceeding was initiated, he owned a half-interest subject to his wife’s contingent interest. This qualified…

No, in a recent New York decision, the court held that only taxes actually paid can be included in the means test. Line 16 of Form 122A–2 is clear and unambiguous in permitting a debtor to deduct, as an other necessary expense in the means test, only the amount actually owed for taxes. See In re Rudnik, 435 B.R. 613 (Bankr. D. Minn. 2010). In re Addison, 580 B.R. 24 (Bankr. E.D. N.Y., Jan. 11, 2018)

Yes, in a recent New York decision, the court ruled that under the plain meaning of the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor in a one-person household who actually incurs operating expenses for two motor vehicles may claim a deduction in the means test for operating expenses for two vehicles, even though the Internal Revenue Service manual specifically states that “a single taxpayer is normally allowed ownership and operating costs for one vehicle.” In re Addison, 580 B.R. 24 (Bankr. E.D. N.Y., Jan. 11, 2018)