OUTCOME: Appeal dismissed, IDJC withdrew their request for reimbursement.
In 2016, John Doe was committed to the custody of Idaho Department of Juvenile Corrections ("IDJC"). After Doe's commitment and upon IDJC's request, the magistrate court ordered Doe's father, Dennis Du...dley, to reimburse IDJC for expenses incurred in caring for and treating Doe pursuant to Idaho Code section 20-524(1). Doe and Dudley appealed the reimbursement order to the district court. The district court, acting in its intermediate appellate capacity, affirmed. Doe and Dudley timely appealed the district court's decision. We dismiss the appeal.
Bankruptcy and debt
In re Bardales, 609 B.R. 260 (2019)
Nov 27, 2019
OUTCOME: Objection Denied
In this chapter 7 case, the Court addresses an issue concerning the scope of property included in the bankruptcy estate. The chapter 7 trustee, Gary L. Rainsdon ("Trustee"), filed his final report on S...eptember 4, 2019. Dkt. No. 49. On September 12, 2019, the debtors, Dennis O. Bardales and Estela Bardales ("Debtors"), filed an objection ("Objection") to Trustee's final report claiming that $5,608.54 in funds the Trustee received from a class-action settlement should not be considered property of the bankruptcy estate and should not be distributed to creditors. Dkt. No. 53. Trustee responded to the Objection on September 30, 2019. Dkt. No. 58. On October 11, 2019, the parties agreed to a statement of undisputed facts, Dkt. No. 62, and Debtors filed an additional brief. Dkt. No. 63. The Court conducted a hearing on the Debtors' Objection on October 15, 2019, and thereafter took the matter under advisement. Dkt. No. 65. Debtors' Objection to Trustee's final report is overruled. The Court finds that Debtors held an accrued legal cause of action as of the petition date, and that cause of action was property of the bankruptcy estate under § 541(a)(1). The Settlement Payment is property of the estate under § 541(a)(6) because it was "proceeds" of Debtors' pre-petition cause of action. Alternatively, the Settlement Payment was property of the bankruptcy estate under § 541(a)(7) because it was traceable to Debtors' pre-petition cause of action, it was acquired in the estate's normal course of business, and, at a minimum, it was otherwise traceable to Debtors' pre-petition cause of action.
Bankruptcy and debt
In re Alonso, 570 B.R. 622 (2017)
Feb 05, 2017
OUTCOME: Both Motions Denied
In this chapter 13 case, the Court is called upon to address complicated dueling motions to modify a confirmed plan. The first motion was filed by Debtors Jose Alonso and Erika Alonso, Dkt. No. 89; the... other was filed by the chapter 13 trustee, Kathleen McCallister ("Trustee"), Dkt. No. 107. The Court conducted a hearing on both motions on February 21, 2017, at which the parties were asked to file briefs, which they did. Dkt. Nos. 125 and 128. Having taken the issues raised by the motions under advisement, the Court has now considered the parties' arguments, as well as the applicable law, and disposes of the motions via this decision.
For all of the above reasons, the Court concludes that, as a package of proposals, Debtors' motion to modify their plan should be denied. Debtors are bound by the terms of their confirmed plan. Interpreting its provision proposing that all "tax refunds" they receive during the applicable commitment period be paid over to Trustee, the Court concludes Debtors must tender their 2015 EIC and ACTC refundable federal tax credits to Trustee, even though those credits are exempt. The Court also concludes that, in this case, Debtors may not retroactively modify their plan to treat the EIC and ACTC portions of their refund differently.
However, the Court rejects Trustee's argument in response to Debtors' motion to modify their plan that, if they retain the EIC and ACTC payments, Debtors must factor those funds into their projected disposable income under § 1325(b) to determine the amount of any modified monthly plan payments. While, generally speaking, EIC and ACTC funds are properly considered in determining disposable income, and those payments are relevant to any good faith analysis of a proposed plan modification, because the Court has concluded that there is no mechanism by which Debtors may retain the EIC and ACTC portions of their 2015 tax refund in this instance, those issues do not come into play in this case.
While Debtors' proposed modifications to their plan will not be approved, should Debtors propose another modified plan, Debtors may use their "fourth year" tax refunds to partially cure their plan payment arrearage. In that modified plan, Debtors may also add six months to the plan term, making it a 60-month plan, and commit all payments made during the final six months to pay their arrearage. Neither of these modifications will prejudice any creditors.
Trustee's motion to modify the plan will be granted, but only in part. While Trustee's motion seeks to increase Debtors' plan payments by $500 per month, the proof does not support that proposal. Instead, on this record, the Court concludes that Debtors' plan payments should increase, in round numbers, by $108, to $929[15] each month for the remainder of the plan.
Because the Court rejected Debtors' proposal for paying the arrearage, they must further address this problem. Debtors may propose another modified plan consistent with this decision. If they do not, Trustee may move to dismiss the case.
Bankruptcy and debt
In re Cantu, 515 B.R. 784 (2014)
Aug 28, 2014
OUTCOME: Exemption Disallowed
Chapter 7[1] trustee Gary L. Rainsdon ("Trustee") objected to the claim of exemption filed by Debtors Rebecca Cherie Cantu and Alejandro Cantu ("Debtors"). Dkt. No. 38. Debtors opposed the objection, t...he Court heard oral argument on June 23, 2014, and thereafter took the issues under advisement. Dkt. Nos. 39-41.
Because the wages at issue are not unpaid within the meaning of the Idaho Code, Debtors may not exempt them under Idaho Code § 11-605(12). Trustee's objection to the claim of exemption will be sustained, and Debtors' claim of exemption will be disallowed.
