Click for NEW YORK, New York Forecast

LegalConsumer.com Bankruptcy Research Notes - Beta 0.08 - (1300+ cases & articles, and counting...)

Topics:

Topic #60:

Keywords: 910 loans .

Secured Debt: 910 Car Loans > Miscellaneous Issues

  • Selected Case
  • Topic Overview
  • 23 Cases on This Topic
  • ?

Case Summary In re Solis, 356 BR 398, Bankr. S.D.TX, 11/14/2006

In re Solis, 356 BR 398 (Bankr. S.D.TX 2006)

Topics

  • 60. Secured Debt: 910 Car Loans > Miscellaneous Issues

    Form 22A Line: 42 :: Form 22C Line: 47

    Case Type: C - Purchased for third party

    If the car is purchased for the use of a non-filing person like a spouse, child etc., the car will not be considered to be purchased for the debtor's personal use and can be crammed down.

    Car purchased for the use of independent adult son was not a 910 car.

Secured Debt: 910 Car Loans > Miscellaneous Issues

23 Cases , IssueID 60

Ch 7 Means Test
Form 22A, Line 42
Ch 13 Means Test
Form 22C Line 47

Topic Description:

So-called "910 loans" (Section 1325(a)) apply only to vehicles purchased for "personal use"



Lines of Cases:

A:

Time Period

B::

Acquired for personal use v. business use

C:

Purchased for third party

Topic Background / Overview:

Text of the so-called "hanging paragraph"

"For purposes of paragraph (5), section 506 shall not apply to a claim described in that paragraph if the creditor has a purchase money security interest securing the debt that is the subject of the claim, the debt was incurred within the 910-day [sic] preceding the date of the filing of the petition, and the collateral for that debt consists of a motor vehicle (as defined in section 30102 of title 49) acquired for the personal use of the debtor, or if collateral for that debt consists of any other thing of value, if the debt was incurred during the 1-year period preceding that filing."

Standards courts have used to determine "personal use"

"To determine whether a vehicle was acquired for personal use for purposes of Section 1325(a), this court asks whether the business needs served by acquiring the vehicle are ancillary to the personal needs of his business or trade. The test used by the Hill Court effectively deems a personal use vehicle a business vehicle if there exists any business use at all. The Hill test is unreasonable because it allows a vehicle primarily used to satisfy personal needs to easily escape the restrictions of Section 1325(a) simply because a debtor drives to work in it. In contrast, the Solis Court's 'substantial material test' assumes personal use unless the car is used almost entirely for business purposes. The Solis test is unreasonable because it ignores the fact that, in reality, most business vehicles will occasionally be used to satisfy personal needs. The test articulated in Joseph allows a reasonable amount of personal use vehicle. This, the Joseph test is the most reasonable test to use in the instant case." -- In re Ozenoski

  • Type A = Time Period
  • Type B = Acquired for personal use v. business use
  • Type C = Purchased for third party
  • Type E = "Everything Else"
  • Cases for Zip
  • All Cases By Date
  • Cases A - Z

Cases for Zip , California Northern District Bankruptcy Court

Ninth Circuit Cases

No Ninth Circuit cases in database on this topic

Other Circuits

� In re Boston

Bankr. D.S.C. - No. 09-09099-JW - 2010-03-05 - 13 ,

Google ID#: 4490162390705860768
(Type E : )

The court sustained a 910 creditor's objection to confirmation of the debtor's plan. The court found that the amendment of a retail installment contract that changed the interest rate, lowered the monthly payments, and extended the term did not affect the lender's purchase money security interest.

� In re Heglar

Bankr.M.D.Ga. - No. 09-51077 - 2010-01-20 - ,

Google ID#: 2342740084040079288
(Type A : Time Period )

The time period relevant in this inquiry is the time the vehicle was purchased.

� In re Strange

Bankr. M.D. Ga. - 424 B.R. 584 - 2010-01-20 - ,

Google ID#: 15405619265307327966
(Type A : Time Period )

The time period relevant in this inquiry is the time the vehicle was purchased.

� In re Daniel-Sanders

Bankr. W.D.N.Y. - 420 B.R. 102 - 2009-12-30 - 13 ,

Google ID#: 2931058598154397293
(Type : )

Debtors are usually only allowed to deduct expenses for a single car. In this case, the court allowed the debtor to deduct expenses for two cars by proposing a plan that did not diminish what she would otherwise pay towards a plan if she only had one car.

� In re Ozenkoski

Bankr. E.D. Mo. - 417 B.R. 794; 799 - 2009-10-23 - ,

Google ID#: 2699394809226623473
(Type B : Acquired for personal use v. business use )

Court recognized the dual role vehicles play (business and personal) and examines the totality of the circumstances to determine if the car is predominantly used to perform functions of a business or trade.

"To determine whether the vehicle was acquired for personal use for purposes of Section 1325(a), this court asks whether the business needs served by acquiring the vehicle are ancillary to the personal needs of his business or trade. The test used by the Hill Court effectively deems a personal use vehicle a business vehicle if there exists any business use at all. The Hill test is unreasonable because it allows a vehicle primarily used to satisfy personal needs to easily escape the restrictions of Section 1325(a) simply because a debtor drives to work in it. In contrast, the Solis Court's 'substantial material test' assumes personal use unless the car is used almost entirely for business purposes. The Solis test is unreasonable because it ignores the fact that, in reality, most business vehicles will occasionally be used to satisfy personal needs. The test articulated in Joseph allows a reasonable amount of personal use vehicle. This, the Joseph test is the most reasonable test to use in the instant case."

� In re Cook

Bankr. D.Kan. - 415 B.R. 529 - 2009-09-10 - ,

Google ID#: 5839898151420025333
(Type A : Time Period )

Debtor's claim for Chapter 13 relief was filed more than 910 days after debtor bought the car in question. The court found that the car should be valued as of the hearing date, using Section 506(a)(2) -- the retail value minus the cost of repairs needed to bring the car into sellable condition.

Specifically, the court interpreted the "age and condition" language of Section 506(a)(2) to mean the cost of bringing the car into sellable condition.

� In re Powell

8th Cir. BAP - 392 B.R. 407; 408 - 2008-09-02 - 7 ,

Google ID#: 5233640008767054544
(Type B : Acquired for personal use v. business use )

Court recognized the dual role vehicles play (business and personal) and examines the totality of the circumstances to determine if the car is predominantly used to perform functions of a business or trade.

"Examples of a business purpose include where the debtor's employer required him to have a particular vehicle to conduct the business of the employer, and paid for its costs and expenses to operate, or where the debtor actually uses the vehicle within the scope of employment."

� In re Pearson

Bankr. E.D.N.C. - No. 07-00478 - 2008-03-07 - ,

Google ID#:
(Type C : Purchased for third party )

If the car is purchased for the use of a non-filing person like a spouse, child etc., the car will not be considered to be purchased for the debtor's personal use and can be crammed down.

Car purchased for the use of non-filing spouse was not a 910 car, even when the debtor later became its sole user.

� In re Matthews

Bankr. D.S.C. - 378 B.R. 481 - 2007-08-28 - ,

Google ID#: 8872014994127835096
(Type C : Purchased for third party )

If the car is purchased for the use of a non-filing person like a spouse, child etc., the car will not be considered to be purchased for the debtor's personal use and can be crammed down.

Car purchased by debtor and her mother that was used by debtor only for transporting her mother, when debtor had another car for her personal use, was not a 910 car.

� In re Wilson

Bankr. D. Kan. - 374 B.R. 251 - 2007-08-24 - ,

Google ID#: 1204889691844913867
(Type B : Acquired for personal use v. business use )

Court recognized the dual role vehicles play (business and personal) and examines the totality of the circumstances to determine if the car is predominantly used to perform functions of a business or trade.

� In re Smith

Bankr. S.D. Tex. - - 2007-05-29 - ,

Google ID#:
(Type C : Purchased for third party )

If the car is purchased for the use of a non-filing person like a spouse, child etc., the car will not be considered to be purchased for the debtor's personal use and can be crammed down.

Car purchased exclusively for use of non-filing spouse was not a 910 car.

� In re Martinez

Bankr. S.D. Tx. - 363 B.R. 525 - 2007-03-12 - ,

Google ID#: 17041577798949745081
(Type B : Acquired for personal use v. business use )

Court recognized the dual role vehicles play (business and personal) and examines the totality of the circumstances to determine if the car is predominantly used to perform functions of a business or trade.

� In re Phillips

Bankr. E.D.Va. - 362 BR 284; 301-302 - 2007-03-08 - ,

Google ID#: 16861646120874790182
(Type A : Time Period )

The time period relevant in this inquiry is the time the vehicle was purchased.

� In re Adams

Bankr. M.D. Ga. - No. 06-51651 - 2007-03-01 - ,

Google ID#:
(Type C : Purchased for third party )

If the car is purchased for the use of a non-filing person like a spouse, child etc., the car will not be considered to be purchased for the debtor's personal use and can be crammed down.

Car purchased for use primarily by non-filing spouse was not a 910 car.

� In re Davis

Bankr. M.D. Ala. - No. 06-10461 - 2006-12-08 - ,

Google ID#:
(Type C : Purchased for third party )

If the car is purchased for the use of a non-filing person like a spouse, child etc., the car will not be considered to be purchased for the debtor's personal use and can be crammed down.

Car purchased for exclusive use of non-filing spouse was not a 910 car.

� In re Solis

Bankr. S.D.TX - 356 BR 398 - 2006-11-14 - ,

Google ID#: 2158312563393427333
(Type C : Purchased for third party )

If the car is purchased for the use of a non-filing person like a spouse, child etc., the car will not be considered to be purchased for the debtor's personal use and can be crammed down.

Car purchased for the use of independent adult son was not a 910 car.

� In re Vagi

Bankr. N.D. Ohio - 351 B.R. 881 - 2006-09-26 - ,

Google ID#: 2099913243657590533
(Type C : Purchased for third party )

If the car is purchased for the use of a non-filing person like a spouse, child etc., the car will not be considered to be purchased for the debtor's personal use and can be crammed down.

Because the Gran Prix was not acquired for Debtor's personal use, the hanging paragraph does not apply to Nissan's claim.

� In re Hill

Bankr. W.D.La. - 352 B.R. 69 - 2006-09-01 - 13 ,

Google ID#: 10909696852252767635
(Type B : Acquired for personal use v. business use )

Debtor must demonstrate that the "acquisition of the vehicle enabled the debtor to make a significant contribution to the gross income of the family unit".

� In re Lewis

Bankr.D. Kan. - 347 B.R. 769 - 2006-08-03 - ,

Google ID#: 15143944776742653750
(Type C : Purchased for third party )

If the car is purchased for the use of a non-filing person like a spouse, child etc., the car will not be considered to be purchased for the debtor's personal use and can be crammed down.

Car purchased by debtor for independent adult daughter who had bad credit was not a 910 car.

� In re Press

Bankr. S.D. Fla. - No. 06-10978 - 2006-07-26 - ,

Google ID#:
(Type C : Purchased for third party )

If the car is purchased for the use of a non-filing person like a spouse, child etc., the car will not be considered to be purchased for the debtor's personal use and can be crammed down.

Car purchased primarily for use of co- filing spouse was not a 910 car.

� In re Johnson

Bankr. W.D. La. - 350 B.R. 712; 716 - 2006-07-20 - ,

Google ID#: 2050398906389579915
(Type B : Acquired for personal use v. business use )

Debtor must demonstrate that the "acquisition of the vehicle enabled the debtor to make a significant contribution to the gross income of the family unit".

� In re Andoh

Bankr.D.Colo. - 370 B.R. 377; 384 - - ,

Google ID#: 15284353052805660606
(Type B : Acquired for personal use v. business use )

Debtor must demonstrate that the "acquisition of the vehicle enabled the debtor to make a significant contribution to the gross income of the family unit".

� In re Grimme

Bankr. S.D. Ohio - 371 B.R. 814 - - ,

Google ID#: 11835578610920796503
(Type C : Purchased for third party )

Car purchased for debtor's son, who occasionally took debtor on errands was a 910 car.

� In re Boston

Bankr. D.S.C. - No. 09-09099-JW - 2010-03-05 - 13 ,

Google ID#: 4490162390705860768
(Type E : )

The court sustained a 910 creditor's objection to confirmation of the debtor's plan. The court found that the amendment of a retail installment contract that changed the interest rate, lowered the monthly payments, and extended the term did not affect the lender's purchase money security interest.

� In re Heglar

Bankr.M.D.Ga. - No. 09-51077 - 2010-01-20 - ,

Google ID#: 2342740084040079288
(Type A : Time Period )

The time period relevant in this inquiry is the time the vehicle was purchased.

� In re Strange

Bankr. M.D. Ga. - 424 B.R. 584 - 2010-01-20 - ,

Google ID#: 15405619265307327966
(Type A : Time Period )

The time period relevant in this inquiry is the time the vehicle was purchased.

� In re Daniel-Sanders

Bankr. W.D.N.Y. - 420 B.R. 102 - 2009-12-30 - 13 ,

Google ID#: 2931058598154397293
(Type : )

Debtors are usually only allowed to deduct expenses for a single car. In this case, the court allowed the debtor to deduct expenses for two cars by proposing a plan that did not diminish what she would otherwise pay towards a plan if she only had one car.

� In re Ozenkoski

Bankr. E.D. Mo. - 417 B.R. 794; 799 - 2009-10-23 - ,

Google ID#: 2699394809226623473
(Type B : Acquired for personal use v. business use )

Court recognized the dual role vehicles play (business and personal) and examines the totality of the circumstances to determine if the car is predominantly used to perform functions of a business or trade.

"To determine whether the vehicle was acquired for personal use for purposes of Section 1325(a), this court asks whether the business needs served by acquiring the vehicle are ancillary to the personal needs of his business or trade. The test used by the Hill Court effectively deems a personal use vehicle a business vehicle if there exists any business use at all. The Hill test is unreasonable because it allows a vehicle primarily used to satisfy personal needs to easily escape the restrictions of Section 1325(a) simply because a debtor drives to work in it. In contrast, the Solis Court's 'substantial material test' assumes personal use unless the car is used almost entirely for business purposes. The Solis test is unreasonable because it ignores the fact that, in reality, most business vehicles will occasionally be used to satisfy personal needs. The test articulated in Joseph allows a reasonable amount of personal use vehicle. This, the Joseph test is the most reasonable test to use in the instant case."

� In re Cook

Bankr. D.Kan. - 415 B.R. 529 - 2009-09-10 - ,

Google ID#: 5839898151420025333
(Type A : Time Period )

Debtor's claim for Chapter 13 relief was filed more than 910 days after debtor bought the car in question. The court found that the car should be valued as of the hearing date, using Section 506(a)(2) -- the retail value minus the cost of repairs needed to bring the car into sellable condition.

Specifically, the court interpreted the "age and condition" language of Section 506(a)(2) to mean the cost of bringing the car into sellable condition.

� In re Powell

8th Cir. BAP - 392 B.R. 407; 408 - 2008-09-02 - 7 ,

Google ID#: 5233640008767054544
(Type B : Acquired for personal use v. business use )

Court recognized the dual role vehicles play (business and personal) and examines the totality of the circumstances to determine if the car is predominantly used to perform functions of a business or trade.

"Examples of a business purpose include where the debtor's employer required him to have a particular vehicle to conduct the business of the employer, and paid for its costs and expenses to operate, or where the debtor actually uses the vehicle within the scope of employment."

� In re Pearson

Bankr. E.D.N.C. - No. 07-00478 - 2008-03-07 - ,

Google ID#:
(Type C : Purchased for third party )

If the car is purchased for the use of a non-filing person like a spouse, child etc., the car will not be considered to be purchased for the debtor's personal use and can be crammed down.

Car purchased for the use of non-filing spouse was not a 910 car, even when the debtor later became its sole user.

� In re Matthews

Bankr. D.S.C. - 378 B.R. 481 - 2007-08-28 - ,

Google ID#: 8872014994127835096
(Type C : Purchased for third party )

If the car is purchased for the use of a non-filing person like a spouse, child etc., the car will not be considered to be purchased for the debtor's personal use and can be crammed down.

Car purchased by debtor and her mother that was used by debtor only for transporting her mother, when debtor had another car for her personal use, was not a 910 car.

� In re Wilson

Bankr. D. Kan. - 374 B.R. 251 - 2007-08-24 - ,

Google ID#: 1204889691844913867
(Type B : Acquired for personal use v. business use )

Court recognized the dual role vehicles play (business and personal) and examines the totality of the circumstances to determine if the car is predominantly used to perform functions of a business or trade.

� In re Smith

Bankr. S.D. Tex. - - 2007-05-29 - ,

Google ID#:
(Type C : Purchased for third party )

If the car is purchased for the use of a non-filing person like a spouse, child etc., the car will not be considered to be purchased for the debtor's personal use and can be crammed down.

Car purchased exclusively for use of non-filing spouse was not a 910 car.

� In re Martinez

Bankr. S.D. Tx. - 363 B.R. 525 - 2007-03-12 - ,

Google ID#: 17041577798949745081
(Type B : Acquired for personal use v. business use )

Court recognized the dual role vehicles play (business and personal) and examines the totality of the circumstances to determine if the car is predominantly used to perform functions of a business or trade.

� In re Phillips

Bankr. E.D.Va. - 362 BR 284; 301-302 - 2007-03-08 - ,

Google ID#: 16861646120874790182
(Type A : Time Period )

The time period relevant in this inquiry is the time the vehicle was purchased.

� In re Adams

Bankr. M.D. Ga. - No. 06-51651 - 2007-03-01 - ,

Google ID#:
(Type C : Purchased for third party )

If the car is purchased for the use of a non-filing person like a spouse, child etc., the car will not be considered to be purchased for the debtor's personal use and can be crammed down.

Car purchased for use primarily by non-filing spouse was not a 910 car.

� In re Davis

Bankr. M.D. Ala. - No. 06-10461 - 2006-12-08 - ,

Google ID#:
(Type C : Purchased for third party )

If the car is purchased for the use of a non-filing person like a spouse, child etc., the car will not be considered to be purchased for the debtor's personal use and can be crammed down.

Car purchased for exclusive use of non-filing spouse was not a 910 car.

� In re Solis

Bankr. S.D.TX - 356 BR 398 - 2006-11-14 - ,

Google ID#: 2158312563393427333
(Type C : Purchased for third party )

If the car is purchased for the use of a non-filing person like a spouse, child etc., the car will not be considered to be purchased for the debtor's personal use and can be crammed down.

Car purchased for the use of independent adult son was not a 910 car.

� In re Vagi

Bankr. N.D. Ohio - 351 B.R. 881 - 2006-09-26 - ,

Google ID#: 2099913243657590533
(Type C : Purchased for third party )

If the car is purchased for the use of a non-filing person like a spouse, child etc., the car will not be considered to be purchased for the debtor's personal use and can be crammed down.

Because the Gran Prix was not acquired for Debtor's personal use, the hanging paragraph does not apply to Nissan's claim.

� In re Hill

Bankr. W.D.La. - 352 B.R. 69 - 2006-09-01 - 13 ,

Google ID#: 10909696852252767635
(Type B : Acquired for personal use v. business use )

Debtor must demonstrate that the "acquisition of the vehicle enabled the debtor to make a significant contribution to the gross income of the family unit".

� In re Lewis

Bankr.D. Kan. - 347 B.R. 769 - 2006-08-03 - ,

Google ID#: 15143944776742653750
(Type C : Purchased for third party )

If the car is purchased for the use of a non-filing person like a spouse, child etc., the car will not be considered to be purchased for the debtor's personal use and can be crammed down.

Car purchased by debtor for independent adult daughter who had bad credit was not a 910 car.

� In re Press

Bankr. S.D. Fla. - No. 06-10978 - 2006-07-26 - ,

Google ID#:
(Type C : Purchased for third party )

If the car is purchased for the use of a non-filing person like a spouse, child etc., the car will not be considered to be purchased for the debtor's personal use and can be crammed down.

Car purchased primarily for use of co- filing spouse was not a 910 car.

� In re Johnson

Bankr. W.D. La. - 350 B.R. 712; 716 - 2006-07-20 - ,

Google ID#: 2050398906389579915
(Type B : Acquired for personal use v. business use )

Debtor must demonstrate that the "acquisition of the vehicle enabled the debtor to make a significant contribution to the gross income of the family unit".

� In re Andoh

Bankr.D.Colo. - 370 B.R. 377; 384 - - ,

Google ID#: 15284353052805660606
(Type B : Acquired for personal use v. business use )

Debtor must demonstrate that the "acquisition of the vehicle enabled the debtor to make a significant contribution to the gross income of the family unit".

� In re Grimme

Bankr. S.D. Ohio - 371 B.R. 814 - - ,

Google ID#: 11835578610920796503
(Type C : Purchased for third party )

Car purchased for debtor's son, who occasionally took debtor on errands was a 910 car.

All Cases A to Z

  • In re Adams, No. 06-51651 , (Bankr. M.D. Ga. ) 2007-03-01, #
  • In re Andoh, 370 B.R. 377; 384 , (Bankr.D.Colo. ) , #15284353052805660606
  • In re Boston, No. 09-09099-JW , (Bankr. D.S.C. ) 2010-03-05, #4490162390705860768
  • In re Cook, 415 B.R. 529 , (Bankr. D.Kan. ) 2009-09-10, #5839898151420025333
  • In re Daniel-Sanders, 420 B.R. 102 , (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. ) 2009-12-30, #2931058598154397293
  • In re Davis, No. 06-10461 , (Bankr. M.D. Ala. ) 2006-12-08, #
  • In re Grimme, 371 B.R. 814 , (Bankr. S.D. Ohio ) , #11835578610920796503
  • In re Heglar, No. 09-51077 , (Bankr.M.D.Ga. ) 2010-01-20, #2342740084040079288
  • In re Hill, 352 B.R. 69 , (Bankr. W.D.La. ) 2006-09-01, #10909696852252767635
  • In re Johnson, 350 B.R. 712; 716 , (Bankr. W.D. La. ) 2006-07-20, #2050398906389579915
  • In re Lewis, 347 B.R. 769 , (Bankr.D. Kan. ) 2006-08-03, #15143944776742653750
  • In re Martinez, 363 B.R. 525 , (Bankr. S.D. Tx. ) 2007-03-12, #17041577798949745081
  • In re Matthews, 378 B.R. 481 , (Bankr. D.S.C. ) 2007-08-28, #8872014994127835096
  • In re Ozenkoski, 417 B.R. 794; 799 , (Bankr. E.D. Mo. ) 2009-10-23, #2699394809226623473
  • In re Pearson, No. 07-00478 , (Bankr. E.D.N.C. ) 2008-03-07, #
  • In re Phillips, 362 BR 284; 301-302 , (Bankr. E.D.Va. ) 2007-03-08, #16861646120874790182
  • In re Powell, 392 B.R. 407; 408 , (8th Cir. BAP ) 2008-09-02, #5233640008767054544
  • In re Press, No. 06-10978 , (Bankr. S.D. Fla. ) 2006-07-26, #
  • In re Smith, , (Bankr. S.D. Tex. ) 2007-05-29, #
  • In re Solis, 356 BR 398 , (Bankr. S.D.TX ) 2006-11-14, #2158312563393427333
  • In re Strange, 424 B.R. 584 , (Bankr. M.D. Ga. ) 2010-01-20, #15405619265307327966
  • In re Vagi, 351 B.R. 881 , (Bankr. N.D. Ohio ) 2006-09-26, #2099913243657590533
  • In re Wilson, 374 B.R. 251 , (Bankr. D. Kan. ) 2007-08-24, #1204889691844913867

FAQ/Help:

How to use case law (it can be tricky)

If you're not familiar with what "case law" is, and how to use it, check out Chapter 7 of Nolo's LegalResearch: How to Find and Understand the Law for a guide to how to read through a case to get the parts that matter.

Also, you need to be familiar with the concept of "jurisdiction." Here are some helpful links:

When you read a case, check to make sure that the case's decision applies to your local district. Do this by looking at which court has decided the case -- either the U.S. Supreme Court, a court of appeal (listed here in large type), or a district court (listed in small type).  Your local district court judge is not bound to follow the opinion of judges from other district courts, but often they look to these cases for advice. Your local district, however, is bound  to follow decisions in cases from it governing circuit court. You'll see fairly few Supreme Court case here, but those cases are also binding on all districts."

Are these all the bankruptcy cases there are?

NO! NO! NO! This is a start for your research. New cases are constantly being decided. I update this when I have time. This is only a fraction of the actual published opinions out there. Dozens of cases are handed down nationwide every week. I catalog interesting ones when I have time. They are meant to serve as a starting point for your research -- NOT as a comprehensive listing of the current state of the law.

 

DISCLAIMER. By using this database you acknowledge and agree to the following:

This database does not contain every relevant case in every district on the topics covered; there are high priced services for that. This is free. It is offered to the public "as is" as an adjunct to the Nolo books, How to File Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, and Chapter 13 Bankruptcy: Keep Your Property and Repay Your Debts Over Time (10th Edition, 2010): which I co-author with attorney Stephen Elias.

This database is updated as time permits. Do not assume that it has the latest case in your district. We are still filling holes in the database -- and will always be. Use it as a place to start your reasearch, rather than the final answer to your question.

Some of these issues involve the discretion of the judge which can vary from judge to judge. So, even if you find a case just like yours where a judge went your way, as they say in the car biz, "your mileage may vary..."

If you're not familiar with what "case law" is, and how to use it, check out Chapter 7 of Nolo's LegalResearch: How to Find and Understand the Law for a guide to how to read through a case to get the parts that matter.

For more help, click the "?" tab.

 


-->