Debtors sought confirmation of their respective Chapter 12 plans.  Secured creditor objected, arguing, inter alia, that the plans were not feasible.  After adjusting debtors' projections based on the evidence presented at trial, the Court found the plans offered a reasonable prospect of success and were workable.  The Court conditioned confirmation on the debtors changing or clarifying certain plan provisions in their confirmation orders.  Such changes were necessary to satisfy the remaining requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 1225.

Plaintiffs sought summary judgment that their debt was nondischargeable, based on two pre-petition state court judgments.  The Court declined to give preclusive effect to the first judgment, which appeared to be a default judgment, but allowed the plaintiffs to supplement the record with other evidence.  The Court determined that the findings in the second judgment were sufficient to establish defendant committed actual fraud and willfully and maliciously injured plaintiffs' property.  Since the second judgment did not include any findings about the amount of damages caused by defendant's conduct, the Court allowed plaintiffs to supplement the record on damages.
 

Class proofs of claim are permitted in bankruptcy cases.  The bankruptcy court may, in its discretion, apply Federal Rule 23 (governing class actions) through Bankruptcy Rule 9014 and Bankruptcy Rule 7023 to the claims allowance process to allow a class representative to file a class proof of claim on behalf of all similarly situated members of the class.  The following factors are relevant to the Court’s decision to apply Rule 7023 to allow the filing of a class proof of claim:  whether the class has been certified; notice of the bankruptcy claims bar date to class members or putative class members; whether public policy reasons favoring class action suits should be applied to the claims process; the nature of the class action, including whether it is an opt in or opt out class;  the timing of the request to file a class proof of claim; whether potential jurisdictional issues impede the filing of a class proof of claim; and the potential impact of the filing of a class proof of claim om the debtor’s reorganization prospects, the potential prejudice to other creditors, and the potential benefit to class members. 

Debtors filed a statement of intention indicating an intent to retain a manufactured home subject to creditor’s security interest and to continue to pay the debt.  Debtors did not seek to reaffirm the debt and did not seek to redeem the property.  The Court denied creditor’s motion to 1) compel debtors to comply with their duties under § 521 by entering into a reaffirmation agreement; and 2) to delay the entry of the debtors’ discharge, holding that a creditor’s exclusive remedy with respect to the property based on the debtors’ failure to comply with their duties under § 521(a)(2) and/or § 521(a)(6) is provided in § 362(h)(1) and the hanging paragraph under § 521(a)(6):  termination of the automatic stay and removal of the property from the bankruptcy estate.  The creditor may proceed to exercise its rights with respect to the property as may be permitted under applicable nonbankruptcy law.