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. 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. 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 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. 2-04-255-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2005

Anton Antonov and Tanev & Son Trucking v. Sonja Walters and Shawn Brown, in His Capacity as Chapter 7 Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Delbert and Sonya Walters

The appellants, Anton Antonov and Tanev & Son Trucking, appealed a judgment in favor of Sonja Walters and Shawn Brown. Appellants raised three issues: Sonja Walters' lack of standing due to her bankruptcy, the trial court's denial of Shawn Brown's intervention, and the legal and factual insufficiency of evidence for Sonja's future medical expenses. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding that Sonja had standing because her claims were properly exempted from the bankruptcy estate, Brown's intervention was timely as it related back to Sonja's original suit, and sufficient evidence supported the jury's award for future medical expenses given Sonja's permanent brain injury and ongoing treatment.

BankruptcyStandingInterventionFuture Medical ExpensesSufficiency of EvidencePersonal InjuryMotor Vehicle AccidentExemptionsChapter 7 TrusteeAppellate Review
References
31
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. 13-70667
Regular Panel Decision

De Sanchez Day Spa & Salon v. Gomez (In re Gomez)

Plaintiff De Sanchez Day Spa and Salon filed a complaint against former employee Hilda Gomez for violating a non-compete and non-solicitation agreement after Gomez began working at a competing salon within the restricted radius and soliciting former clients. A state court issued a temporary injunction, which Gomez violated. Following Gomez's Chapter 13 bankruptcy filing, the case was removed to federal bankruptcy court. Presiding Judge Marvin Isgur granted a preliminary injunction against Gomez until December 15, 2014, finding a substantial likelihood of De Sanchez succeeding on the merits, a threat of irreparable harm due to Gomez's bankruptcy, and that the injury to De Sanchez outweighed the harm to Gomez. The injunction is conditional on De Sanchez posting a $10,000 bond, with a final trial on the merits scheduled for December 15, 2014.

Non-compete agreementPreliminary injunctionBankruptcyBreach of contractNon-solicitationIrreparable harmEnforceability of covenantTexas Business and Commerce CodeEmployment contractTrade secrets
References
10
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

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. 06-02-00183-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2004

Russell Burke and Wife, Lori Burke, and Bob Anderson, as Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Trustee v. Union Pacific Resources Company, N/K/A Anadarko E & P Company, Palestine Water Well Service, Inc. and Jere Pritchett

This case concerns an appeal regarding property damage to a water well caused by seismic testing. The appellants, Russell and Lori Burke and their bankruptcy trustee, sued Union Pacific Resources Company (UPRC) and Palestine Water Well Service, Inc. (PWW). The appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding that the Burkes' negligence claim and PWW's tortious interference claim were barred by the statute of limitations. For the Burkes' breach of contract claim, the court found the $1.5 million jury award factually insufficient, suggesting a remittitur. Following the acceptance of a $653,700.00 remittitur by the Burkes, the judgment was modified and affirmed, resulting in a recovery of $842,300.00 for the Burkes and a take-nothing judgment for PWW.

Property DamageSeismic TestingWater WellCattle FeedlotBreach of ContractNegligenceTortious InterferenceStatute of LimitationsDiscovery RuleDamages
References
74
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cano v. GMAC Mortgage Corp. (In Re Cano)

This memorandum opinion addresses a class action brought by current and former Chapter 13 debtors, including the Canos, against GMAC Mortgage Corporation, L.L.C. Plaintiffs allege that GMAC improperly charged and collected undisclosed fees and costs during and after their bankruptcy plans, violating confirmed plans, Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2016, and various Bankruptcy Code sections. The court partially grants GMAC's motion to dismiss certain claims based on specific Bankruptcy Code provisions (e.g., automatic stay, discharge injunction) which it found did not create private rights of action for post-confirmation conduct. However, the court denies dismissal for claims regarding violations of court orders confirming Chapter 13 plans and Rule 2016, affirming its jurisdiction and broad remedial authority under 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) to enforce these and protect the 'fresh start' principle of bankruptcy. The court also rejects GMAC's challenge to subject matter jurisdiction over a nationwide class action for such violations.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 13 DebtorsMortgage ContractsGMAC MortgageFees and CostsDischarge InjunctionAutomatic StayRule 2016Section 105Class Action Lawsuit
References
130
Showing 1-10 of 1,979 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