Confirmation of Plan does not substitute for adjudication of objections to discharge

In re Hanson (7th Cir. 2005)

Where the Code requires commencement of an Adversary proceeding and entry of particular findings before a discharge can occur (i.e. student loans), confirmation of a Plan providing for such a discharge is ineffective until said hearing takes place because the alternative deprives the creditor of due process.

============================================================ Automatic Stay stops actions in other Bankruptcy Courts (brain teaser)

In re Miller (9th Cir. 2005)

Though the Automatic Stay does not affect proceedings in the same Court in which the Debtor's Bankruptcy case is pending, it does preclude actions filed in another Bankruptcy Court from working at cross purposes against the Debtor in the newly-filed case. ============================================================ Dismissal of Appeal unduly harsh In re Beachport Entertainment (9th Cir 2005)

Dismissal of an Appeal based on the Trustee/Appellant's failure to provide the BAP with the Judgment or Order being appealed, the Complaint, or the Answer, in violation of FRBP 8009, was an unduly harsh sanction. ============================================================

Party in interest has standing In re Moss (Bankr. E.D. Mi. 2005)

Where the amount owed to the Debtor by a party in interest may be reduced based on the outcome of a dispute in that Bankruptcy case, said party has a sufficient "pecuniary interest" to appear and be heard in the dispute. Although the Debtor in a no-asset Chapter 7 does not ordinarily have standing, where the outcome of a dispute would result in more funds being made available for payment of a debt for which the Debtor would remain personally liable, the Debtor had standing. There is authority for the proposing that, to the extent an award of the maximum compensation allowable under § 326(a) does not result in what would appear to be an unconscionable windfall, Trustees may reasonably expect to receive the maximum allowable fee. However, the subject Court rejected the notion that the maximum fee is presumptively reasonable, ruling that such a standard would be inconsistent with the Code. Nothing in the Bankruptcy Code or Rules dispenses with the need for a trustee to maintain detailed billing records.