Attorney Craig William Andresen's Legal Cases

Bankruptcy and debt

In re Johnson (Manty v. Johnson), No. 13-6050 (8th Cir. B.A.P. April 22, 2014).

Apr 22, 2014

OUTCOME: Minnesota property tax refunds are not exempt under Minn. Stat. section 550.37 subd. 14.

Mr. Andresen represented the debtor, an 88 year old widow living on Social Security, in a chapter 7 case. The trustee asked for turnover of the debtor's 2012 property tax refund in the amount of $1,94 ... 6. The debtor claimed the property tax refund exempt pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 550.37 subd. 14, as government assistance based upon need. The bankruptcy court agreed that the refund was exempt, and the trustee appealed. On appeal, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reversed. The appeals court held that because under Minnesota law, persons earning up to $103,000 annually could receive at least a partial property tax refund, such a refund could not be government assistance based on need. [As of June 20, 2014, this issue is also on appeal before Judge Tunheim of the Minnesota U.S. District Court.]

Chapter 13 bankruptcy

In re Fisette (Fisette v. Keller), 455 B.R. 157 (8th Cir. B.A.P. 2011).

Aug 29, 2011

OUTCOME: Appellate court ruled that a chapter 13 plan could avoid, or "strip off," a wholly unsecured junior mortgage on residential real estate.

Attorney Craig Andresen represented the debtor in this chapter 13 bankruptcy appeal. In a case of first impression in the Eighth Circuit, Mr. Andresen sought to establish that a chapter 13 plan could s ... trip off a junior mortgage from residential real estate, where the mortgage was not supported by any actual value of the home. The Eighth Circuit was the last circuit lacking appeals court authority for this lien stripping process. The appeals court's ruling in this case brought lien stripping to the district of Minnesota for the first time. As such, the ruling was reported extensively in general circulation news media in Minnesota as well legal publications, including the Minneapolis Star Tribune, St. Paul Pioneer Press, and Minnesota Lawyer.

Chapter 13 bankruptcy

In re Chapman, 431 B.R. 216 (Bky.D.Minn.2010).

Jun 10, 2010

OUTCOME: The appeals court held that the chapter 7 means test applied to cases converted to chapter 7 fom chapter 13, as well as to cases originally filed under chapter 7.

Mr. Andresen represented the debtors in a joint chapter 13 case filed in 2008. Thirteen months later the debtors converted their case to chapter 7 after inability to make payments under their chapter ... 13 plan. The U.S. Trustee asked the court to dismiss the case due to the debtors' income creating a presumption of abuse under the chapter 7 means test. The debtors argued that they were not subject to the means test, because their case had been "filed" under chapter 13, not chapter 7. The court agreed, holding that the chapter 7 means test applied only to cases filed under chapter 7, and not to cases converted to chapter 7 from chapter 13. On appeal, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel reversed this ruling.

Chapter 7 bankruptcy

In re Ansar, 383 B.R. 344 (Bky.D.Minn.2008).

Mar 05, 2008

OUTCOME: A Statement of Presumption of Abuse filed by the U.S. Trustee under section 704(b)(1)(A) must unequivocally state whether or not the U.S. Trustee believes that a presumption of abuse has arisen.

Mr. Andresen represented the debtor in a chapter 7 case in which the U.S. Trustee filed a motion for dismissal under section 707(b). However, prior to filing its 707(b) motion, the U.S. Trustee did no ... t file a Statement of Presumption of Abuse which stated clearly that the chapter 7 filing was an abuse of chapter 7. Section 704(b)(1)(A) clearly requires that such a statement be filed within ten days of the creditors meeting, as a prerequisite to the U.S. Trustee's filing of a 707(b) motion. Here, the U.S. Trustee had only filed a statement saying that it could not determine if the chapter 7 filing was an abuse of chapter 7. The bankruptcy court agreed with the debtor that such an ambiguous statement did not satisfy section 704(b)(1)(A)'s requirement that a statement be filed saying whether or nor an abuse of chapter 7 was presumed. Thus, the court held that the U.S. Trustee could not pursue its motion for dismissal of the chapter 7 filing. The debtor was therefore entitled to a discharge.

Chapter 7 bankruptcy

In re Katusky, 372 B.R. 910 (Bky.D.Minn.2007.

Aug 06, 2007

OUTCOME: The court held that a valid spendthrift clause excluded the debtor's interest in the trust from the bankruptcy estate.

Mr. Andresen represented the debtor in a chapter 7 case. The debtor's mother died a few weeks after the case was filed, leaving her estate to a trust. The trust provided that upon her death, all the t ... rust funds would be paid to her children, including the debtor. The chapter 7 trustee sought an order that the debtor's trust funds were property of the bankruptcy estate, because they were received in the 180 days after the chapter 7 was filed. The court denied the trustee's motion, ruling that because the trust had a valid spendthrift clause, it was excluded from the bankruptcy estate.

Chapter 7 bankruptcy

In re Irwin, 232 B.R. 151 (Bky.D.Minn.1999).

Mar 31, 1999

OUTCOME: The cour held that a lawnmower is exempt under Minn. Stat. section 550.37 subd. 4.

Mr. Andresen represented the debtor in a chapter 7 case. The trustee filed a motion asking the court for an order that her computer, and her lawnmower, were not exempt under Minn. Stat. section 550.37 ... subd. 4. The court held that the lawnmower was a household appliance under subd. 4, but that the computer was not.

Chapter 7 bankruptcy

In re Wegner, 91 B.R. 854 (Bky.D.Minn.1988).

Oct 21, 1988

OUTCOME: Where the debtors are not eligible for chapter 11 or 13, the debtors' income is irrelevant and they are entitled to proceed under chapter 7.

Mr. Andresen represented the debtors in a joint chapter 7 case. The U.S. Trustee asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that the debtors could afford to pay back their debts in a chapter 13 case ... . However, the debtors' credit card debts totaled $123,000, and the unsecured debt limit of bankruptcy code section 109 was $100,000. The debtors could not proceed under chapter 11 either, because they were not engaged in business. Even if the debtors had sufficient income to repay part of their debts, they were ineligible for either chapter 11 or chapter 13. The court held the debtors' income was irrelevant if they were not eligible for any type of reorganization bankruptcy case. The court therefore granted a discharge of debts.

Craig William Andresen's Legal Cases (7)

In re Johnson (Manty v. Johnson), No. 13-6050 (8th Cir. B.A.P. April 22, 2014).

In re Fisette (Fisette v. Keller), 455 B.R. 157 (8th Cir. B.A.P. 2011).

In re Chapman, 431 B.R. 216 (Bky.D.Minn.2010).

In re Ansar, 383 B.R. 344 (Bky.D.Minn.2008).

In re Katusky, 372 B.R. 910 (Bky.D.Minn.2007.

In re Irwin, 232 B.R. 151 (Bky.D.Minn.1999).

In re Wegner, 91 B.R. 854 (Bky.D.Minn.1988).