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...
From the Editor
Print This Article
Link to Post:
By Wm. Houston Brown, United States Bankruptcy Judge (Retired)
Confirmation - Bankruptcy court could not sua sponte object to confirmation. Distinguishing between “self-executing” provisions of the Code and those sections that were not “self-executing,” and discussing Espinosa’s impact on that distinction, District Court held that the bankruptcy court could not sua sponte object to confirmation based on the above- median debtor’s calculation of disposable income. Section 1325(b)(1) gives only the trustee and unsecured creditors authority to object to confirmation based on failure to commit projected disposable income to plan . . .
It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to members.
Or Sign In Below:
Related Articles
Postpetition Borrowing by a Consumer Debtor in Chapter 13 – Part 2 of 2
From the Editor – Eligibility
Critical Case Comment–IRS and the “Innocent Spouse”
NCLC Seeks Signers Urging Foreclosure Pause When HAF Applied For
Critical Case Comment – Sec. 328 vs. Sec. 327 Not Exactly a Smack Down
From the Editor
Here’s What Taxpayers Should Consider When Determining If They Need to File
Post-Petition Causes of Action, Inheritances and Windfalls Are Property of the Estate and Must Be Reported to the Trustee – Part 4 of 5
Ask Ms. Ps and Qs
Critical Case Comment