Bankruptcy case-a-palooza

1st Circuit

Hannigan v. White (06/02/05 - No. 04-2234)

Bankruptcy court did not commit clear error when it denied plaintiff-debtor's motion to amend his homestead exemption as a sanction for undervaluing his property in bad faith.

3rd Circuit

In re General Datacomm Industries, Inc. (3rd Cir. 2005)

Bankruptcy court did not err in refusing rejection of debtor's retirement benefit contract. Involuntary termination of employees on the verge of retirement cannot deprive such employees of the procedural protections of §1114.

In re Knapper (3rd Cir 2005)

When a cause of action is being sold to a present or potential defendant over the objection of creditors, a Bankruptcy court must, in addition to treating it as a sale, independently evaluate the transaction as a settlement under the prevailing “fair and equitable” test, and consider the possibility of authorizing the objecting creditors to prosecute the cause of action for the benefit of the Estate as permitted by §503(b)(3)(B).

Knapper v. Bankers Trust Co. (05/24/05 - No. 03-3552)

Plaintiff's attempt to void 2 default-judgments for foreclosure is foreclosed by Rooker-Feldman doctrine: accordingly, plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

5th Circuit

Cadle Co. v. Pratt (06/03/05 - No. 04-10495)

In a bankruptcy action, judgment in favor of defendant-debtor is affirmed over plaintiff-creditor's claim that defendant's discharge should not have been granted since he failed to schedule, and actually concealed, certain assets.

In re Pettle (5th Cir. 2005)

"Excusable neglect" warranting reopening of a case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1) cannot be attributable solely to Counsel's carelessness with or misapprehension of the law or applicable Court Rules. Despite Counsel's mea culpa that dismissal of an adversary case with prejudice a year earlier had been a mistake, the Court did not err in refusing to reopen it.

6th Circuit

In re Cluxton (6th Cir. BAP 2005)

Bankruptcy court did not err in holding that a Ch. 13 debtor's mobile home was part of the real estate, and thus the mortgage covering that home could not be modified in the Ch. 13 plan because of the the anti-modification provisions of §1322(b)(2).

Volvo Commercial Fin. v. Gasel Transp. Lines, Inc. (06/09/05 - No. 04-8062)

Bankruptcy court did not err in determining that plaintiff was not entitled to allowance of an administrative expense claim as a result of DIP's post-petition use of trucks in which plaintiff held security interests.

Tirch v. Pennsylvania Higher Ed. (06/03/05 - No. 04-3125)

Partial discharge of plaintiff's student loan debt is reversed where her ailments do not preclude her from returning to work, and are unlikely to persist for a significant portion of the repayment period.

In re Cook, __ B.R. __ (Bkrtcy.N.D.Ohio 2005)

Plan providing for 100% payoff to unsecured creditors but no interest on those claims could not be confirmed. Court held that §1325(a)(4), as interpreted in Hardy v. Cinco F.C.U., 755 F.2d 75 (6th Cir. 1985), required debtors to pay interest on unsecured debts in a 100% plan. Court also held that the proper interest rate in such a situation should be determined using the “coerced loan” approach.

7th Circuit

In the Matter of: UAL Corp. (05/24/05 - No. 05-2093)

In an action concerning United Airline's proposal to terminate its pension plans, United's substitute fiduciary cannot participate in a hearing under §1113 since it is not an "interested party."

8th Circuit

Stephenson v. Greenblatt (05/24/05 - No. 04-2261)

In a proceeding for amounts due under promissory notes signed by defendant, judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed over defendant's claim that the agreements cannot be enforced due to a lack of consideration.

Rose v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. (05/31/05 - No. 04-6065)

Bankruptcy court's discharge of debtor's student loan is reversed where evidence showed that plaintiff had current income available to repay the loan.

9th Circuit

Cossu v. Jefferson Pilot Securities (06/03/05 - No. 04-16699)

District court did not err in affirming Bankruptcy court's determination that defendant had a valid claim against plaintiff and such debt was nondischargeable pursuant to §523(a)(2)(A).

In re Lahijani (9th Cir. BAP 2005)

Debtor's request to void default judgments of foreclosure was bared by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.