The court denied the Debtor’s motion under § 506(c) to surcharge its principal secured creditor for attorney fees and expenses incurred from the petition date through October 31, 2017. In doing so, the court found that the Debtor did not incur the attorney fees primarily to protect or preserve the creditor’s collateral and provided no direct and quantifiable benefit to the creditor.
You are here
Click here to view.
Honorable Patrick M. Flatley
In dismissing First Bank of Charleston, Inc., and Carter Bank and Trust's motion to convert the Debtor's case under § 1112(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, the court finds that the Creditors failed to establish cause for conversion based on the estate's alleged continued diminution and absence of a reasonable likelihood of rehabilitation, the Debtor's alleged administrative insolvency, or the Debtor's alleged gross mismanagement of the estate.
In dismissing the Debtors’ case based upon § 109(g)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, the court adopts the “causal connection” approach for determining debtor eligibility thereunder.
In granting the Chapter 13 trustee's motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c), the court finds that the uncontested material facts entitle the trustee to relief on her complaint under § 544(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code.
In approving Peoples Bank's motion for summary judgment, the court finds that Peoples Bank provided the Trustee with constitutionally-sufficient notice, despite its financing statement being mis-indexed by the Secretary of State.
In granting the Debtors’ proposed modification of their confirmed Chapter 13 plan, the court finds that nothing in § 1325(b)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code or Pliler v. Stearns (In re Pliler), 747 F.3d 260 (4th Cir. 2014) requires Chapter 13 debtors to pay more than the confirmed base of their plan absent additional disposable income or nonexempt assets justifying modification.
In granting the Debtor’s motion to value an automobile under § 506(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, the court finds that valuation is not precluded by the “hanging paragraph” of § 1325(a) because the Debtor did not acquire the vehicle for his personal use.
In approving the Debtor's stipulation with Dollar Tree resolving its objection to Dollar Tree's proof of claim, the court finds that Dollar Tree’s voting rights need not be identical to its distribution rights under a Chapter 11 plan, and that the stipulation does not constitute an impermissible solicitation under § 1125(b).