CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Ortiz-Peredo

The Chapter 13 Trustee objected to the Debtors' Chapter 13 plan, arguing they did not meet the "best efforts" test by not including lawsuit settlement proceeds in their disposable income. The Debtors contended the lawsuit proceeds were exempt property and thus not liable for pre-petition debts. The Court reviewed the interplay between exemption provisions (§ 522(c)) and disposable income requirements (§ 1325(b)), distinguishing between majority and minority views on the matter. Following the majority view and *In re Launza*, the Court determined that once settlement proceeds are defined as income and "disposable income" under § 1325(b), they qualify as projected disposable income, irrespective of their exempt status. Consequently, the Court granted the Trustee's Objection, requiring the Debtors to propose a new plan within fourteen days or face dismissal.

BankruptcyChapter 13Disposable IncomeExempt PropertySettlement ProceedsPlan ConfirmationTrustee ObjectionBest Efforts TestSan Antonio DivisionPost-Petition Income
References
9
Case No. No. 06-03609, No. 06-03654
Regular Panel Decision

Padilla v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. (In Re Padilla)

This case addresses how the Bankruptcy Code and Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure affect a mortgage lender's right to collect 'Reimbursable Expenses' in Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases. The Court examined the collection of such expenses both pre- and post-confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan. It held that Bankruptcy Rule 2016(a) governs the collection of these expenses by mortgage lenders in Chapter 13 cases, both pre and post-confirmation. The Court determined that while Section 506(b) limits pre-confirmation expenses for oversecured creditors, it does not apply post-confirmation. Furthermore, the Court found that failure to comply with Rule 2016(a) or the imposition of unauthorized expenses would entitle a debtor to relief, but that such conduct does not violate the automatic stay. The cross-motions for partial summary judgment were denied due to insufficient evidence regarding actual collection of disputed charges.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 13Mortgage ServicingReimbursable ExpensesAttorney FeesBankruptcy ProcedureRule 2016(a)Section 506(b)Plan ConfirmationAutomatic Stay
References
86
Case No. Consolidated Chapter 13 Cases (e.g., 91-20422 to 97-36152)
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Phillips

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses objections by chapter 13 trustees to the postpetition claims for attorney's fees and expenses filed by William A. Cohn, an attorney representing numerous chapter 13 debtors. Mr. Cohn had routinely filed these claims under 11 U.S.C. § 1305(a)(2), arguing it served as an alternative to the § 330 procedures for professional compensation. The Court found that § 1305(a)(2) is intended for exigent circumstances where prior trustee approval is impracticable, not for routine legal work, and that Mr. Cohn failed to meet its conditions. It emphasized that § 330, which requires notice, a hearing, and detailed documentation, is the appropriate procedural vehicle for approving attorney's fees to ensure reasonableness and benefit to the debtor. Consequently, the Court disallowed all of Mr. Cohn's postpetition claims filed under § 1305(a)(2), vacated prior administrative orders that had mistakenly allowed these claims, and ordered Mr. Cohn to either file proper § 330(a)(4)(B) applications with full time and expense documentation by July 31, 1998, or disgorge all received postconfirmation fees and expenses by August 14, 1998.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 13 ProceedingsAttorney CompensationPostpetition ClaimsFee ApplicationsDisgorgement of FeesProcedural ComplianceProfessional EthicsJudicial ReviewAdministrative Errors
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Casse

The debtor, Robert E. Casse, moved to vacate the foreclosure sale of his home, arguing it violated the automatic stay after his Chapter 13 filing. Key Bank National Association opposed, contending the Chapter 13 case was void due to a prior court order dismissing Casse's third Chapter 11 case "with prejudice" to prevent serial filings. The court denied Casse's motion, finding his Chapter 13 filing violated the previous order, which was a proper exercise of judicial authority under the Bankruptcy Code to prevent abuse of process. Consequently, the Chapter 13 case was dismissed as a nullity. The court reserved jurisdiction to consider imposing sanctions against the debtor.

BankruptcyForeclosureAutomatic StaySerial FilerDismissal with PrejudiceChapter 13Chapter 11Bad Faith FilingJudicial AuthorityAbuse of Process
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Troutman

Raymond G. and Peggy Ann Troutman, debtors, filed a Chapter 13 petition after receiving a Chapter 7 discharge, seeking to pay only secured creditors over three years. The court noted that the debtors had no unsecured debt due to their prior Chapter 7 discharge and were attempting to use Chapter 13 solely to deal with secured claims. The court, citing precedent from similar cases, found that this combined approach constituted a plan that offered no payments to unsecured creditors, thus failing the good faith requirement of Section 1325(a)(3) of the Code. Therefore, the court denied confirmation of their Chapter 13 plan, concluding it was an attempt to achieve indirectly what could not be accomplished directly.

BankruptcyChapter 13Chapter 7Good Faith RequirementSecured ClaimsUnsecured Debt DischargePlan ConfirmationSerial FilingsForeclosure ProceedingsDebtor's Plan
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2018

Midstate Fin. Co. v. Peoples

Midstate Finance Company appealed the Bankruptcy Court's confirmation of Justin and Cathy Peoples's Chapter 13 plan. The appeal centered on two main issues: the valuation of the debtors' property for the "best interest of the creditors" test and the failure to discount Chapter 13 plan payments to net present value. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's property valuation, finding it was not clearly erroneous given the evidence considered. However, the court reversed on the second point, holding that Chapter 13 plan payments must be discounted to net present value when applying the best interest of the creditors test. The case was remanded to the Bankruptcy Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

BankruptcyChapter 7Chapter 13Creditors' RightsDebtorsProperty ValuationBest Interest TestNet Present ValueHomestead ExemptionLiquidation
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Holtslander

Casey Holtslander, a Chapter 13 Debtor, filed a motion to modify her post-confirmation chapter 13 plan to use post-petition insurance proceeds from an automobile casualty policy. AmeriCU Credit Union, the sole loss payee, and the Chapter 13 Trustee objected, arguing that the proceeds should go entirely to AmeriCU or that the Debtor lacked legal basis for distribution to the estate. The Court, presided over by Bankruptcy Judge Diane Davis, overruled the objections, holding that the insurance proceeds are property of the estate and AmeriCU's interest is limited by the confirmed plan's bifurcation of its secured claim. The Court granted the Debtor's motion to modify the plan, allowing the proceeds to pay AmeriCU's secured claim, with the surplus retained by the estate and a reduction in monthly payments.

BankruptcyChapter 13Plan ModificationInsurance ProceedsLoss PayeeSecured ClaimsProperty of the EstateRes JudicataCramdownAutomobile Casualty
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bryant v. Hamilton County (In re Bryant)

The plaintiff, Cherilyn E. Bryant, filed a chapter 13 bankruptcy petition after her property was sold at a tax sale to Carlton J. Ditto by Hamilton County. She sought to redeem the property, and Chattanooga Neighborhood Enterprise (CNE) tendered the redemption payment on her behalf within 60 days of her bankruptcy order for relief, citing 11 U.S.C. § 108(b). The defendants contended that this provision applies only to a trustee, not a chapter 13 debtor. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ruling that a chapter 13 debtor, when exercising rights over property of the estate, is entitled to the same extension of time for redemption as a trustee under § 108(b). The court also found sufficient evidence that CNE acted as the plaintiff's agent in the redemption process, making the redemption timely.

BankruptcyTax SaleRight of RedemptionChapter 13Debtor in Possession11 U.S.C. § 108(b)Agency LawSummary JudgmentProperty of the EstateTennessee Property Law
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Voll

The debtors, Patrick L. Voll and Linda P. Voll, filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance ("Tax Department") willfully violated the automatic stay by continuing to garnish Mrs. Voll's wages post-petition, despite receiving notice of the bankruptcy filing. The garnishment ceased, and the improperly deducted funds were returned after the Debtors filed a motion for sanctions. The court found that the Tax Department willfully violated the automatic stay. However, the court denied the Debtors' claim for emotional distress damages, finding they failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of significant emotional harm distinct from the general stressors of bankruptcy and other life events. The court awarded the Debtors $13,625.00 in attorneys' fees as actual damages for the willful violation of the stay.

Bankruptcy LawAutomatic Stay ViolationWage GarnishmentSanctions MotionAttorneys' Fees AwardChapter 13 BankruptcyTaxation and FinanceActual DamagesEmotional Distress ClaimsWillful Violation
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 1995

In Re Minor

The court consolidated two Chapter 13 bankruptcy cases, In re Minor and In re Mills, concerning objections by the Chapter 13 Trustee to the debtors' claims of exemption for lump-sum workers' compensation benefits. Debtors Kevin S. Minor, Angela D. Minor, and Martin Blaine Mills had received these settlements post-confirmation and sought to exempt them under Tennessee law. The primary issues resolved by Chief Judge Richard S. Stair, Jr. were whether these awards constituted property of the estate under 11 U.S.C.A. § 1306(a) and whether they should be included as "disposable income" for plan confirmation under 11 U.S.C.A. § 1325(b)(2). The court held that workers' compensation awards are indeed property of the estate and, despite state law exemptions, must be included in the calculation of disposable income to be applied to the Chapter 13 plan, to the extent not reasonably necessary for the debtors' support or business operations. Consequently, the Trustee's objection to amended exemptions was sustained in part, affirming that the benefits are property of the estate and disposable income, but overruled in part as debtors could still claim exemption under state law.

Chapter 13 BankruptcyWorkers' CompensationExemptionsDisposable IncomeProperty of EstatePost-Confirmation ModificationBankruptcy CodeTennessee LawLump Sum SettlementStatutory Interpretation
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 1,713 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational