(Bankr. W.D. Ky. July 12, 2017)

The bankruptcy court sustains the creditors’ objection to the debtors’ claimed homestead exemption. The property was not owned solely by the debtors, so the exemption would apply only to their partial interest in the property. The property was sold but there was no evidence as to the amount allocated to the debtors’ interest in the property. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorney for Debtors: Mark H. Flener

Attorney for Creditors: Kerrick Bachert PSC, Scott A. Bachert

(W.D. Ky. April 25, 2017)

(6th Cir. B.A.P. Mar. 9, 2017)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Jan. 17, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the creditor’s motion for sanctions, and awards the creditor her attorney fees. The debtor filed the Chapter 13 petition for the stated purpose of obtaining more time to obtain a reduction in his maintenance obligation owed to the creditor in the state court. The bankruptcy court finds that this was a violation of Bankruptcy Rule 9011(b). Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorney for Debtor: Naber & Joyner, J. Gregory Joyner

Attorney for Creditor: Joseph S. Elder II

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Nov. 16, 2016)

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. September 14, 2016)

(7th Cir. July 26, 2016)

The Seventh Circuit interprets a Wisconsin exemption statute applicable to annuity contracts. The statute provides that such a contract is exempt from assets available to creditors so long as it “complies with the provisions of the internal revenue code.” The trustee argued for a narrow interpretation of this language, while the Court ultimately agrees with the broader interpretation of the statute employed by Wisconsin bankruptcy courts. Opinion below.

Judge: Hamilton

Attorney for Debtors: Dewitt Ross & Stevens S.C., Craig E. Stevenson

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. May 23, 2016)

The bankruptcy court sustains the creditor’s objection to the proposed Chapter 13 plan, finding the creditor’s expert more credible than the debtor’s expert as to valuation of the debtor’s mobile home. Thus, the the creditor’s secured claim was higher than the amount provided for in the plan. The court also holds that certain of the appliances in the home are not accessions and thus are not subject to the creditor’s lien. Opinion below.

Judge: Moberly

(7th Cir. Apr. 5, 2016)

(7th Cir. Mar. 4, 2016)