By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee (Nashville, TN) It constitutes an unfair discrimination, violative of 11 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(1), for a Chapter 13 plan which would pay more to a student loan than to the remaining general unsecured creditors. (Somers) In re Kane, 603 B.R. 491 (Bankr. C.D. Kan. June 18, 2019) Case Summary Ronald Kane filed...
Critical Case Comment
Print This Article
Link to Post:
By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Trustee, Nashville, TN
In re Heinzle, 2014 WL 244226 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. May 30, 2014)
Where debtors have made all payments to the Trustee as required by their plan but failed to maintain “conduit” payments to the mortgage creditor, the debtors did not make all payments under their plan and their case should be dismissed. (Gargotta)
Case Summary
The Heinzles filed their Chapter 13 bankruptcy in October of 2008 proposing a plan in which they would make payments to the Trustee for the purpose of curing . . .
It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to members.
Or Sign In Below:
Related Articles
Critical Case Comment
Section 302: Joint but Separate
Critical Case Comment – Creditor Not Required to Dismiss Prepetition Nonbankruptcy Action
Critical Case Comment– Absolute Right to Dismiss But Not the End of the Story
The Chapter 13 Business Model
Meet One of Our Newest Trustees
Small Business Reorganization Act…(“SBRA”) H.R. 3311 – Part Two
U.S. Trustee Fee Unconstitutional
Bozeman Revisited: The Anti-Modification Clause Chisels Away at Espinosa
Critical Case Comment – Although a Mess, Month-to-Month Lease Assumed