(7th Cir. June 23, 2016)

The Seventh Circuit reverses the bankruptcy court, concluding that the bankruptcy code permits modification of a confirmed Chapter 13 plan based on increased income post-confirmation. While the code does not expressly permit modification on this basis, other courts have permitted this. The trustee had filed a motion to increase the debtors’ plan payments based on an alleged $50,000 post-confirmation increase in the debtors’ annual income. Opinion below.

Judge: Adelman

Attorney for Debtor: Eugene Wedoff

(7th Cir. June 13, 2016)

(7th Cir. June 10, 2016)

The Seventh Circuit reverses, holding the bankruptcy court applied too narrow of a baseline payment range to the creditor’s ordinary course defense in this preference action. While this court agreed that there were a few payments outside the ordinary course, the new value defense applied to completely offset those payments. Opinion below.

Judge: Sykes

Attorneys for Appellant: Nixon Peabody LLP, Richard Scott Alsterda, Theodore Eric Harman

Attorneys for Appellee: Clark Hill PLC, Pamela Joy Leichtling, Scott N. Schreiber

(7th Cir. Apr. 14, 2016)

The Seventh Circuit applies Wisconsin state law and holds that a mortgage can attach a lien to a vendor’s interest in a real estate contract and that the lender perfected the lien by recording in the county land records rather than filing a UCC-1 financing statement. The trustee is unable to avoid the lien. Opinion below.

Judge: Hamilton

Attorneys for Trustee: Michael F. Dubis, Christopher R. Schultz

Attorneys for Appellees: Ruffi Law Offices, Sara Lynn Ruffi, Lund Law Office, Brad M. Lund

(7th Cir. Apr. 5, 2016)

(B.A.P. 6th Cir. Nov. 28, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the Chapter 12 bankruptcy case. The court finds that the bankruptcy court failed to give the debtor proper notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the dismissal. However, the violation of due process was harmless error. The delay in filing a confirmable plan and continuing loss to the estate warranted the dismissal. Opinion below.

Judge: Preston

Attorney for Appellant: Heather McKeever

(7th Cir. Mar. 22, 2016)

(7th Cir. Aug. 14, 2017)

The Seventh Circuit reverses the district court and holds that certain funds held by the debtor were held in trust for the appellant and other creditors in the same customer class. The funds therefore were not property of the estate that should be distributed pro rata to all creditors. Opinion below.

Judge: Hamilton

Attorneys for Appellant: Foley & Lardner LLP, Stephen Bedell, Robert Seth Bressler, Geoffrey S. Goodman, David B. Goroff, Thomas P. Krebs, William J. McKenna, Jr.

(7th Cir. Mar. 18, 2016)

(7th Cir. July 18, 2017)

The Seventh Circuit affirms the bankruptcy court’s order sustaining the trustee’s objection to the debtors’ $30,000 exemption in trust assets. The debtors argued the spendthrift provisions in the trust prevented the interest from becoming property of the estate. The court holds that the trust interest fully vested before the debtors filed bankruptcy. An exemption was inappropriate and the interest was property of the estate. Opinion below.

Judge: Sykes

Attorney for Debtors: Julia D. Mannix

Attorney for Trustee: Zane Zielinski