Re: Wirth - (WD Bankr. Ct. 2010) The means test imposes a minimum plan length (absent 100% payment). Total plan payments are an estimated amount to be paid during that time period and not a maximum or minimum that must be paid in order to complete a plan.
Re: Pugh - (ED Bankr. Ct. 2014) Postpetition tax refund can be setoff to pay prepetition priority tax liability.
Re: Matson & Mabry - (ED Bankr. Ct. 2014) Same-sex spouses married in a state that allows them to do so may file a joint bankruptcy even in a state that does not recognize their union as marriage.
Re: Burgess - 138 B.R. 56 (WD Bankr. Ct. 1991) Wisconsin case (Martin) Confirmation vacated as plan would've altered amount amount of allowed claims.
Re: Carr - 318 B.R. 517 (WD Bankr. Ct. 2004) Wisconsin case (Martin) Confirmation vacated as plan would've altered amount amount of allowed claims.
Re: Tennyson - (11th Circuit Court of Appeals) Above median income debtor must remain in bankruptcy for five years unless all unsecured creditor's claims are paid in full.
RE: Harris vs. Viegelahn Supreme Court (2015) Holds that undisbursed funds held by a standing chapter 13 trustee must be returned to the debtor upon conversion to Chapter 7
RE: Pajian (7th Circuit Court of Appeals-2015) Says Rule 3002(c) applies to all creditors. Secured and unsecured alike are bound by the bar date imposed under 3002. TheTrustee notes that Rule 3004 allows the debtor or counsel 30 additional days to file a claim if the creditor does not
RE: Hrubrec (7th Circuit 2016-ND IL) Says if a secured creditor agrees to its treatment under the plan, filing a proof of claim is optional. Note: decisions in this district have historically required a claim to be filed in order to be paid. See the Kitzerow decision below. Also, with the new form plan effective 12-1-17, a proof of claim appears to be mandatory. Also see Morgan case below
RE: Powers (7th Circuit Court of Appeals 2016) Says the debtor, the trustee, or an allowed unsecured creditors may seek modification to increase plan payments based on a post-confirmation increase in income
Re: Kitzerow (WD Wis 2/7/2017) - Debtor filed a Motion to allow a secured vehicle loan claim to be filed after the bar date in order to require the Chapter 13 to make disbursements on a late-filed claim. The Court discussed the differences between the facts in this case and those of In re Pajian, finding a distinction between a case in which there is no confirmed plan on file and a creditor files a claim after the bar date (Pajian) and a case in which a creditor attempts to file a claim after a plan has been confirmed(Kitzerow). The Court noted the Kitzerow confirmed plan included specific detailed treatment of the secured portion of the vehicle loan i.e. a secured amount of $7,950 at 5% interest and monthly installments of $125. The Court held the parties are bound by the confirmed plan treatment of the secured claim and the Trustee is directed to disburse plan payments in accordance with Section 1326(a)(2) and the terms of the confirmed plan. As the creditor failed to timely file a claim for the unsecured portion of the car loan, the unsecured claim is barred and will be discharged, assuming the debtor completes the plan
Re: Pratola (7th Circuit Court of Appeals 18-cv-00213 08-31-2018) - Debtor was found not to be eligible for chapter 13 as student loan debts exceeded the eligibility limits imposed by 11 U.S.C.Section 109(e).The decision included review of Re: Bailey-Pfeiffer (WD Wis 3/28/2018) and Re: Fishel (WD Wis 3/30/2018) where conflicting opinions on eligibility had been found.
Re: Morgan (ED Wis 02-11-2019 by Judge Ludwig) - Late Filed Secured Claim disallowed as not timely filed pursuant to Rule 3002 and the requirements of the local plan. The decision reaffirms the holding of the Paijan and refutes that of the Hrubec cases linked above..
Re: Long (ED Wis 07-22-2021 by Judge Halfenger) - Failure to file required tax returns before the 341 Meeting date may result in dismissal. Requesting adjournment of the 341 may be appropriate.
Re: Snyder(WD Wis 01-17-2023 by Judge Blise) - Request to reconvene 341 Meeting denied where taxes had not been timely filed. The 341 meeting was concluded as debtor affirmed that all returns had been filed. The Court cannot use 11 USC Section 105(a) to reconvene the 341 meeting when it was later found that not all returns had been filed.
