By Hon. Brian Lynch, United States Bankruptcy Judge, Western District of Washington, Tacoma Division When the Supreme Court issued United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa1 on March 23, 2010, commentators were perplexed.2 On the one hand, the Court upheld the 9th Circuit’s ruling allowing a hardship discharge of student loans in a chapter 13 plan. The Court held that...
Critical Case Comment: In re Heideker
Print This Article
Link to Post:
By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Trustee for the Middle District of Tennessee
In re Heideker, 455 B.R. 263 (Bankr. M.D. Fla., June 2, 2011) (Adams)
If a Trustee objects to a Chapter 13 Debtor’s proposed plan modification, the Debtor cannot shorten the term of the plan below the applicable commitment period unless the Debtor pays all unsecured claims in full.
Case Summary
Debtors in two Chapter 13 cases proposed to modify their plans to pre-pay the amount they had proposed to pay when their plans were confirmed but do so . . .
It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to members.
Or Sign In Below:
Related Articles
United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa Ten Years After
Rules, Means-Test Amounts and Miscellaneous Fees: Changes Wrap Up 2020
Fastest Way to Check Tax Refund Is ‘Where’s My Refund?’ Tool at IRS.Gov
Quick Tips to Make You a PowerPoint Master – Effective Use of PowerPoint
Post-Petition Causes of Action, Inheritances and Windfalls Are Property of the Estate and Must Be Reported to the Trustee – Part 3 of 5
In the Trenches: Secrets to Settlement – Competency in the Courtroom Part 3 of 3
Brace & Beyond: Joint Tenancy & Transmutation
Claim Preclusion and the Opportunities for Mischief
Fraud Imputed to Partner – Bartenwerfer v. Buckley
Critical Case Comment – “Extraordinary” Key to Set Aside Dismissal