Summary: Despite testimony from the Debtors that they anticipated a substantial decrease in income due to loss of overtime, the court found that it was the circumstances at the time of the hearing that controlled.  Taken with the Debtors’ retention of a boat, their failure to disclose tax refunds,  overtime and bonuses, and continued 401k contributions, dismissal was appropriate. For a copy of the opinion, please see:

Summary: Dark brought an adversary proceeding seeking to have the debt of Thomas declared nondischargable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2).  Thomas moved to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal,  129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949,  (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.

Summary: Not quite half-way through this exhaustive opinion, the bankruptcy court, in discussing Stern v.

Summary: The Debtor’s corporation filed Chapter 7 and the Debtor agreed to buy the assets of the corporation from the Chapter 7 Trustee for $3,400.00.  The Trustee was later contacted by an auctioneer, who informed the Trustee that the Debtor was attempting to sell additional corporate assets, that had not be listed in the bankruptcy petition filed by the corporation.  The Debtor eventually did sell these non-disclosed assets for $4,000.00 and also filed his own personal Chapter 7 bankruptcy, with the same Trustee being appointed.  The Trustee eventually settle

Summary: Creditor filed its Proof of Claim six(6) days after the bar date.  Following the objection to the Claim by the Chapter 7 Trustee, the Creditor argued that the claim should be allowed due to excusable neglect.  The bankruptcy court held that under Rule 9006(b)(3),  it had no authority to extend the time to file claims. For a copy of the opinion,  please see: Meredith- No extension of time to file

Summary: The Court examined the three options for determining household size for Means Test calculations.  Rejecting both the Census Bureau "heads on beds" approach and the IRS dependency test, the Court instead found that an analysis of  "economic unit" was appropriate. "Head on Beds" could be inaccurate "[i]f the debtor’s household includes an individual who  purchases these items from his own separate income, and contributes nothing to the debtor’s household for these items, then the deduction will include an unwarranted extra amount that wouldotherwise be

Summary: The Debtors had initially disclosed in their petition that they anticipated receiving tax refunds for 2008 totaling $3,000.00.  The actually received $11,194.00, but failed to notify either the Chapter 13 Trustee or their attorney. After failing to obtain confirmation of their original Chapter plan, which sought to strip-off a junior mortgage held by State Employee's Credit Union,  a the Debtors proposed a plan releasing their residence to SECU.  Under the new plan, no funds would be paid to SECU, which accordingly sought and obtained an order allowin

Summary: Deluxe Cleaners originally filed Chapter 11 in the Eastern District of North Carolina, but venue was shortly thereafter transferred to the Middle District of North Carolina.  A related bankruptcy,  filed by the Parks (who owned Deluxe Cleaners) was filed in the Eastern District of North Carolina.  Thus began a cross-district tangle. Prior to the filing of either bankruptcy, Deluxe Cleaners and the Parks obtained a judgment against Forrest Investment Group.  As part of the Deluxe Cleaners bankruptcy, assets were sold to Forrest Investment and this

The Debtor acquired a piece of real property in 2001 solely in his name.  In 2007, three months after the Plaintiff/Creditor file a lawsuit against the Debtor, the Debtor transferred the property to himself and his wife as Tenants by the Entireties.  Four months later, the Debtor filed Chapter 7. The Plaintiff brought an action against the Debtor under 11 U.S.C.