(630) 378-2200
Mon - Fri 8:00am - 5:00pm
Request a Case Evaluation
Cir. 5

Reed v. City of Arlington (Sept. 17)

In a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case in which debtors omitted a pending $1 million-plus judgment from their sworn statements and bankruptcy filings, the district court’s order discharging debtors’ debts is reversed where, to protect the integrity of judicial processes, judicial estoppel barred the trustee from collecting the judgment.

Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust v. Tucker (Sept. 15)

In Chapter 13 proceedings, bankruptcy court’s judgment sustaining the debtor’s claim that she need only cure the amount of default that is secured and that the fees and expenses in connection with her underlying mortgage should be treated as unsecured amounts is vacated and remanded as the bank’s fees and advances, which were allowed under the parties’ agreement and applicable nonbankruptcy law, must be included in the cure amount.

Cir. 9

In re: Gebhart (Sept. 14)

In consolidated Chapter 7 bankruptcy petitions in which the value of debtors’ homes increased so that they had equity in excess of the homestead exemptions, the bankruptcy court’s order approving the appointment of a real estate broker to sell the home for the benefit of the estate is affirmed where the fact that the value of the claimed exemption plus the amount of the encumbrances on the debtor”s residence was, in each case, equal to the market value of the residence at the time of filing the petition did not remove the entire asset from the estate.

Cir. 10

In re: Dittmar (Sept. 14)

In bankruptcy trustees’ appeal from the judgment of the bankruptcy appellate panel holding that debtors’ stock appreciation rights (SARs) were not part of debtors’ bankruptcy estates under 11 U.S.C. section 541, the order is reversed where: 1) while the value of the SARs before any payment event occurred may have been de minimis, that did not mean that debtors did not have a property interest in the SARs; and 2) the SARs created by the collective bargaining agreement at issue were more akin to contingent pre-petition property rights than mere expectancies based on discretionary bonuses.

Leave a Reply

Let us help you!

If you need any helps, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you with 1 business day. Or if in hurry, just call us now.

Call : 630.378.2200

Request a Case Evaluation