Summary: In their Chapter 7, the Youngs agreed, in a court approved settlement,  to allow the sale of their residence, splitting the net proceeds  equally with the Trustee and were to keep “only those furnishings necessary to furnish their new residence”, with the remainder of their personal property  to be auctioned.  After initially identifying the property they were to retain with the Trustee’s auctioneer, the Young sold all of their additional property with a different auction company, using the funds to pay for moving costs.  It appears that the

Summary: Mr. Barth commenced an adversary proceeding seeking a declaratory judgment that various state court actions by Mr. Spoor could have been brought by the bankruptcy trustee, who had previously signed a release of such actions, and that Mr. Spoor should be required to dismiss those actions. The bankruptcy court instead dismissed Mr. Barth’s adversary proceeding on the grounds that such relief was prohibited by the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283. The bankruptcy court declined, however, to award the sanctions sought by Mr.

Summary: Ms. Calloway divorced Mr. Bowles and shortly before a final judgment was entered in their equitable distribution proceeding, she filed Chapter 13. Just prior to Ms. Calloway’s bankruptcy filing, the state court judge circulated a preliminary ruling to the parties via email, stating that he believed an unequal distribution of the marital assets in favor of Mr. Bowles would be equitable and that Ms.

Summary: The Prices, who are above median income debtors, but nonetheless have negative projected disposable monthly and no non-exempt assets, proposed an estimated 15% dividend to the class of dischargeable general unsecured creditors, which totaled $11,728.38.  They also proposed to separately classify the  $10,463.48 claim by Navient for non-dischargeable student loans.  The Chapter 13 Trustee supported confirmation, but the Bankruptcy Administrator filed a limited objection to such treatment. The bankruptcy court first addressed whether the prohibition in&n

Summary: Following receipt of an Reaffirmation Agreement from World Omni, the Macys completed and signed the statutorily prescribed form and both returned the documents to World Omni and filed a copy with the bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy court sua sponte held that the filing of the Reaffirmation “absent a signature of an authorized representative” of World Omni was improper and of no binding effect, despite that it may be necessary for a debtor to establish that the requirements of 11 U.S.C.

Summary: Before filing a voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy, Ms. Washabaugh was employed by Wake Forest Baptist Health/N.C. Baptist Hospital, where she made personal purchases using her employer’s credit card without reimbursement, also using that credit card and gift cards to make purchases from her own Thirty-One handbag business for gifts for volunteers and other employees. Ms. Washabaugh was terminated for these purchases, with the hospital filing an employee dishonesty claim with National Union Fire Insurance for $1,009,347.00. When Ms.

Summary: The bankruptcy court issued a show cause order to the Debtor’s attorney for signing a certification that a reaffirmation would not be an undue hardship for the Debtor. The court held that in regards to a reaffirmation the debtor’s attorney must file an Affidavit stating that the Reaffirmation: 1. Represents a fully informed and voluntary agreement by the debtor; 2. Does not impose an undue hardship on the debtor or a dependent of the debtor; 3.

Summary: The Debtor caused a fatal motor vehicle accident while under the influence and was subsequently pleaded guilty to felony death by motor vehicle. At the time of the collision, the Debtor was covered by his own insurance with State Farm and the Allstate insurance policy held by the owner of the car the Debtor was driving. The decedent's estate settled with both Allstate, but after being unable to reach terms with State Farm, ultimately obtained a wrongful death verdict for approximately $2.8 million.

Summary: Following the re-opening of Ms. Washabaugh’s Chapter 7, the Bankruptcy Administrator sought revocation of her discharge. Ms. ’s motion to dismiss that complaint, alleging that the Bankruptcy Administrator lacked standing for such action, was denied by the bankruptcy court and Ms. Washabaugh sought leave to bring an interlocutory appeal to the district court. The district court began with 28 U.S.C.