Skip to main content
Charles J. Schneider
Avvo
Pro

Charles Schneider’s Legal Cases

8 total

  • Americredit v Nichols (In re Nichols) 440 F.3d 850 (6th Cir. Mich. 2006)

    Practice Area:
    Chapter 13 Bankruptcy
    Date:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Outcome:
    Affirmed
    Description:
    Car creditor appealed decision of Bankruptcy Court to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals asking for a lift of stay as the the car lender was not receiving adequate protection. The creditor appellant was denied a lift of stay based upon a chapter 13 plan default when the debtors modified their plan.
  • Hearn v Bank of New York, Countrywide Home Loans 337 B.R. 603 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2006)

    Practice Area:
    Chapter 13 Bankruptcy
    Date:
    Feb 03, 2006
    Outcome:
    Chapter 13 Debtor set aside unrecorded mortgage.
    Description:
    Chapter 13 Debtor commenced an adversary lawsuit pursuant to 11 USC 544 to set aside the mortgagee's unrecorded mortgage. The Court determined that the Debtor had standing because the Debtor's confirmed chapter 13 plan provided for the same. The matter was therefore res judicata. The Court granted summary judgement as the mortgagee admitted that its mortgage was unrecorded.
  • Glance v Carroll (In re Glance) 487 F.3d 317 (6th Cir. Mich. 2007)

    Practice Area:
    Chapter 13 Bankruptcy
    Date:
    Jun 01, 2007
    Outcome:
    Affirmed
    Description:
    Petitioner was determined to be ineligible for Chapter 13 relief under 11 USC 109(e) as his secured debt included a "secured claim" against his real property for which he had no personal liability.
  • Baud v Carroll (In re Baud) 415 B.R. 291 ( E.D. Mich. 2009)

    Practice Area:
    Chapter 13 Bankruptcy
    Date:
    Sep 03, 2009
    Outcome:
    Reversed
    Description:
    Debtors desired a Chapter 13 plan length of 36 months and only submitted an amended 60-month plan upon the trustee's objection in order to avoid dismissal. The court held that, because the bankruptcy court's order confirming the amended plan increased debtors' burden by lengthening the repayment period and increasing the amount repaid, they had standing to appeal because they were aggrieved parties. The court held that because debtors had no projected disposable income, the "applicable commitment period" requirement in 11 U.S.C.S. § 1325(b)(1)(B) did not come into play. The trustee presented no evidence of changed circumstances to rebut the presumption that debtors' negative disposable income, as shown on their Form 22C, was also debtors' projected disposable income. The court declined to find that debtors had a positive net income at the time they filed their Chapter 13 petition. Because debtors' Form 22C indicated that they had a negative income, they did not have any projected disposable income and, thus, were not required to propose a 60-month Chapter 13 plan.
  • Strausbough v. Co-op Servs. Credit Union, 426 B.R. 243 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2010)

    Practice Area:
    Chapter 13 Bankruptcy
    Date:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Outcome:
    Chapter 13 Plan Confirmed
    Description:
    The debtor’s non-filing spouse had previously filed a Chapter 7 case, and the first and second mortgages on their tenancy by the entireties property had been discharged as to them. In each case, the value of the property was less than the amount due on the first mortgage. Thus, the sole issue was whether under § 506(a) and (d) the junior lien on the entireties property could be avoided in a bankruptcy case filed by only one spouse. The court first determined that each estate’s interest in the entireties property was in whatever equity was available in the property that could be liquidated for the benefit of the joint creditors of the debtor and the non-filing spouse. Because there was no equity available to pay joint claims, the estate had no interest in the entireties property of the debtor and the non-filing spouse. Because the estate had no interest in the entireties property, the second mortgage holder had no interest in the estate’s interest in the property. Nothing in state law or the Bankruptcy Code precluded the debtors from avoiding the junior liens on their entireties properties.
  • In re Senczyszyn, 426 B.R. 250 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2010)

    Practice Area:
    Chapter 13 Bankruptcy
    Date:
    Apr 07, 2010
    Outcome:
    The court overruled the objection filed by the State of Michigan to the proof of claim filed by the debtors in the amount of $ 1,900 thus preventing the State from denying the debtor protection from collection of the tax debt.
    Description:
    The debtors filed this Chapter 13 case in March of 2009 and showed that the State of Michigan was holding a claim in the amount of $ 1,900 for state income taxes for the year 2008. The State of Michigan did not file a timely claim so the debtors filed a proof of claim under 11 U.S.C.S. § 501(c) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3004 on behalf of the State creditor. The State later filed an objection claiming that the taxes were a post-petition debt. The court disagreed. The fact that the debtors' tax return was not due until April 15, 2009 did not change the character of this claim from a pre-petition claim to a post-petition claim, particularly here where the debtors filed their income tax return weeks before they filed their bankruptcy petition. Nor did the fact that 11 U.S.C.S. § 1305 permits a governmental unit to file certain types of post-petition claims somehow transform the debtors' tax liability for income earned during the pre-petition year 2008, into a post-petition claim. The claim here arose before the bankruptcy case was filed. The debtors properly and timely filed the proof of claim. Therefore, the court allowed the claim filed by the debtors.
  • In re Wilson, Case No. 10-45791 (Bankr. E.D. Mi 2010)

    Practice Area:
    Chapter 13 Bankruptcy
    Date:
    Jul 07, 2010
    Outcome:
    Debtor was permited to file the proof of claim on behalf of the state to deal with the income tax debt.
    Description:
    Chapter 13 case filed prior to April 15, 2010 tax liability could not fix a 2009 State income tax liability or deem the proof of claim to be filed by the State where a proof of claim had not been filed.Debtor, however can file a proof of claim for the State under Rule 3004 if the state fails to do the same after the expiration of the 180 days provided by the Rule as the debt must be paid in full as a priority claim pursuant to 11 USC 1325.
  • Baud v. Carroll, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2182 (6th Cir. Mich. 2011)

    Practice Area:
    Chapter 13 Bankruptcy
    Date:
    Feb 04, 2011
    Outcome:
    Reversed
    Description:
    The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan held the applicable commitment period (ACP) was 60 months for above-median-income debtors, but the requirement did not apply because the debtors had negative projected disposable income. It reversed a bankruptcy court order sustaining a Chapter 13 trustee's objection that it should be extended to 60 months, and remanded to allow the debtors to modify their plan. The trustee appealed.Congress had not provided that the ACP was a multiplier for determining payments to unsecured claims, thus, the temporal approach was adopted: due to the positive projected disposable income (PDI) and objection, all PDI to be received in the ACP had to be applied for payments over a duration equal to 11 U.S.C.S. § 1325(b)'s ACP. Items such as Social Security benefits excluded under 11 U.S.C.S. § 101(10A)'s definition of current monthly income, and other expenses above-median-income debtors could deduct had to be deducted; including them would read out disposable income's revised definition. Section 1325(b)(3) clearly allowed for a mortgage payment deduction, absent some other basis, other than the disposable-income test, for disallowance. Excluding the benefits and deducting mortgage payments resulted in a negative PDI. Under § 1325(b)(4)(B), confirming a plan of less than 3 or 5 years, respectively, was permissible only if unsecured claims were paid in full over a shorter period. To ensure creditors were paid the maximum amount affordable, § 1325(b)(1)(B) required all PDI be applied to payments over a duration equal to the ACP, whether the PDI was negative, zero, or positive.