Stephen Law filed a chapter 7 petition in California. His only valuable asset was his home, which he scheduled at a value of $363,348. Washington Mutual Bank held a lien against the home to secure a loan in the amount of $156,929. Law asserted a homestead exemption under California law of $75,000. In order to prevent the bankruptcy trustee from selling his home, Law fabricated a second lien against his home which consumed his entire equity, and obtained the cooperation of a Chinese national named Lili Lin to assert that she was actually owed money by the debtor. 
The Sixth Circuit in its recent opinion in Grant, Konvalinka & Harrison, P.C. v. Still (In re McKenzie), 737 F.3d 1034 (6th Cir.
Section 1121(e)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code provides a 180-day exclusive period for a small business debtor to file a plan, unless this period is extended by the court. Section 1121(e)(2) provides “the” plan and a disclosure statement (if any) shall be filed no later than 300 days after the order for relief. Section 1121(e)(3) provides that the deadlines in 1121(e)(1) and (e)(2) may be extended only if the debtor demonstrates that it is more likely than not that the court will confirm a plan within a reasonable period of time.
When a chapter 7 bankruptcy case is filed, a trustee is appointed to gather and sell the debtor’s assets. To aid in this effort, the trustee is empowered to avoid certain transfers pursuant to Bankruptcy Code sections 544 - 550. The trustee also is empowered, pursuant to Bankruptcy Code § 542, to seek turnover of assets belonging to the estate. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that a party may be required to turnover estate property even if the party is no longer in possession of such property. See Shapiro v.
In a case of first impression at the circuit level, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has held a debtor’s entire religious tithing is avoidable if it exceeds 15% of the debtor’s gross annual income, and the court did so based on its perception of the plain language of the Religious Liberty and Charitable Donation Protection Act which codified the “safe harbor” provisions of sec.
Probably the most significant bankruptcy law development in the past several years has been the narrowing of bankruptcy courts’ constitutional authority to enter final judgments. See Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct.
The Tenth Circuit recently analyzed the interplay between sections 523(a)(5) and 523(a)(15) of the Bankruptcy Code in connection with a judgment obtained by a former husband for overpayment of his spousal support obligations. Eloisa Taylor, the debtor in In re Taylor, 2013 WL 6404952 (10th Cir.
A recent bankruptcy court decision could have wide-reaching implications for pipeline operators. Judge Shelley C.
Congress enacted § 1328(f) of the Bankruptcy Code when its passed BAPCPA. This section prohibits the granting of a chapter 13 discharge if the debtor received a chapter 7 discharge within four years prior to the commencement of his chapter 13 case.
The Tenth Circuit has in the past refused to give preclusive effect in bankruptcy non-dischargeability actions brought under § 523(a)(2) to pre-petition default judgments arising from claims of actual fraud. In re Jordana, 216 F.3d 1087 (10thCir. 2000).