Claims

7th Circuit Apr 29, 2024

Belated Seventh Circuit Opinion May Set Up ‘Cert’: Is Section 505(a) Jurisdictional?

Seventh Circuit again holds that Section 505(a) doesn’t confer jurisdiction for bankruptcy courts to decide how much debtors owe in taxes.

Benchnotes July 2024

Benchnotes By Bradley D. Pack, Aaron M. Kaufman and Christina Sanfelippo Debts of Sub V Corporate Debtors Can Be Nondischargeable As a matter of first impression, the Fifth Circuit recently held that in subchapter V proceedings, both corporate and individual debtors are

4th Circuit Apr 17, 2024

Fourth Circuit Says Entireties Property Is Not Exempt from Tax Debt

The lack of perfection of a federal tax lien did not mean that the entireties interest was exempt under Section 522(b)(3).

Benchnotes May 2024

Benchnotes By Aaron M. Kaufman, Bradley D. Pack and Christina Sanfelippo Preference Claims Under § 547 Are Estate Property and May Be Sold Joining the Eighth and Ninth Circuits, 1 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that claims for the avoidance of

Late-Allowed Vehicle Claims and the Importance of Finality

Late-Allowed Vehicle Claims and the Importance of Finality By Linda B. Gore Editor’s Note: Unlike past articles in this column, the authors mostly agree on the viewpoint, but this article outlines the basis for those trustees/courts that take a different position. Most

Late-Allowed Vehicle Claims: Striving for a More Just Result

Late-Allowed Vehicle Claims and the Importance of Finality By Linda B. Gore Editor’s Note: Unlike past articles in this column, the authors mostly agree on the viewpoint, but this article outlines the basis for those trustees/courts that take a different position. Most

Bankruptcy Is No Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card for a Disobedient Debtor

When there has been a division of marital property, does a debtor only hold legal title to property given to the spouse?

Debtor May Amend a ‘13’ Plan to Modify the Treatment of a Secured Creditor’s Claim

Chicago Bankruptcy Judge David Cleary followed a decision by then-district Judge David Hamilton and “respectfully” disagreed with decisions by two predecessors on the same bankruptcy bench.