Summary:
The Debtor excluded from her CMI her non-filing husband's monthly payments of $166.00 for his student loans and $1,628.00 related to their former residence, including renovation costs.. This resulted in a negative disposable monthly income. The Bankruptcy Administrator argued that since the non-filing spouse was spending money on expenses and renovations of joint property, such payments were benefitting the Debtor and should be included in CMI.
First the Bankruptcy Court and then, on appeal, the District Court agreed with the Debtor, finding that
Summary:
FIA Cards sued the Debtor seeking recovery of $46,311.81 outstanding on a credit card. The trial court granted summary judgment to FIA Cards and the Debtor appealed arguing that FIA Cards had failed to prove the existence of an account.
The Court of Appeals agreed finding that FIA Cards has only provided three credit card statements from the months surrounding the default. Further, there was no evidence in the record on appeal that even these statements were verified. As such, FIA Cards had failed to comply with the requirements of N.C.G.S.
Summary:
The individual Chapter 11 plan proposed to pay approximately a 4% dividend to general unsecured claims, but separately classified his $235,871.00 in student loans, proposing to pay that class in full. No impaired class accepted the plan.
Accordingly, the plan could only be approved by fulfilling the requirements of 11 U.S.C.
Summary:
Kenneth Jones filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition on behalf of his minor nephew, "John Doe", in 2003. Because Jones had not been appointed as the Debtor’s guardian, the trustee moved for appointment of a guardian ad litem under Rule 1004.1. The case, however, was dismissed prior to any appointment.
Moving to the present, the Debtor contended that as Jones was not his guardian under Rule 1004.1, the bankruptcy was improper and had detrimentally affected his adult life. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
Households often rely on professionals with specialized knowledge to make important financial decisions. In many cases, the professional’s financial interests are at odds with those of the client. We explore this problem in the context of personal bankruptcy. OLS, fixed effects, and IV estimates all show that attorneys play a central role in determining whether households file under Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 of the bankruptcy code.
Sun Trust sued to collect on deficiencies following a foreclosure in North Carolina. The Debtors raised defenses challenging the validity of the debt and the default. The Court of Appeals held that the determination of a valid debt and default at the foreclosure hearing was res judicata. While the Debtors could not have raised these equitable defenses in the hearing under N.C.G.S. § 45-21.16, they could have raised such defenses in a proceeding to enjoin the foreclosure under N.C.G.S.
Debtor was the beneficiary of two Spendthrift Trusts. The Spendthrift Trusts, which were governed by Pennsylvania law, protected both the income and corpus/principal of the trusts for the beneficiaries. As such, 11 U.S.C. § 541(c)(2) provides that "[a] restriction on the transfer of a beneficial interest of the debtor in a trust that is enforceable under applicable nonbankruptcy law is enforceable in a case under this title" and the trusts were outside the reach of the bankruptcy estate.
Abstract:
This Article considers the Supreme Court’s decision in Stern v. Marshall, which limited the power of a bankruptcy judge to decide a common law claim. Stern is best understood as a combination of three arguments drawn from the Court’s prior Article III cases. The first is an argument from history — the past division of labor between the Article III judiciary and non-Article III adjudicators. The second is an argument from expertise — the appropriate selection of disputes that benefit from a specialized non-Article III forum.
Abstract:
Congress regularly makes judgment calls of constitutional dimension. One important example of the interaction between the constitutional analysis of the Court and that of Congress involves disputes over the broad grant of jurisdiction exercised by untenured bankruptcy judges. The legislative history preceding the Supreme Court’s decisions in Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. and Stern v. Marshall suggest that Congress’s constitutional interpretation is different in kind from that of the Supreme Court.
