In re Aime; Case No. 07-12388-SSM; February 28th, 2008 This matter was before the court on the motion of the creditor to enforce a security interest in a motor vehicle and the debtor’s motion to amend the previously entered order conditioning the automatic stay. The Debtor was in default of her payments on the vehicle [...]
In re Shea; Case No. 08-10350-RGM; February 27th, 2008 The debtor in this case previously had a case dismissed within the last year. Because of this, according to Bankruptcy Code §362(c)(3)(B), a hearing to extend the automatic stay beyond this 30 day period must be “completed before the expiration of the 30-day period.” That court [...]
In re Gebermariam; Case No. 07-11355-RGM; February 26th, 2008 Judge Mayer, sua sponte, issued this memorandum opinion decreasing the amount owed because the credit card company submitted an affidavit with numbers adding up to a different amount than that claimed.
In re Exum; Case No. 08-10079-RGM; February 21st, 2008 Debtor’s spouse filed a Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay to Proceed with divorce proceedings. Court noted that the automatic stay, does not operate as a stay of the commencement or continuation of a civil action “(ii) for the establishment or modification of an order [...]
In re Golman; Case No. 07-12496-RGM; February 20th, 2008 Income and expenses on reaffirmation differed from Schedules I & J without explanation required by Rule 4008. Debtors had the opportunity to be heard, but were not able to explain the difference. Therefore, the court did not approve the reaffirmation agreement.
In re Senseng; Case No. 07-11165-RGM; February 19th, 2008 No Debtor signature and income and expenses on reaffirmation differed from Schedules I & J without explanation required by Rule 4008. Reaffirmation agreement not approved.
In re Gonzalez; Case No. 07-11165-RGM; February 11th, 2008 If the agreement shows there to be an undue hardship, and the attorney does not check the box that certifies that despite the undue hardship “the debtor(s) is/are able to make the required payment.” Because of this, §524(c) was not satisfied and the agreement was not [...]
In re Bensinger; Case No. 07-12984-RGM; February 6th, 2008 Debtor was represented by counsel who did not completely fill out the reaffirmation agreement. Also, the monthly income and expenses on the reaffirmation agreement did not match Schedules I & J in the case and the court decided that, pursuant to FRBP 4008, a hearing was [...]
Credit Slips Bankruptcy Law Network