In re Montanaro, Case No. 08-60665 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. Dec. 10, 2008).

Debtor's conversion of non-exempt mutual funds into exempt IRAs on the eve of bankruptcy was permissible exemption planning in light of the Eighth Circuit's opinion in Addison v. Seaver.

Date of the decision: 12/10/08

For the opinion click here.

Marie v. Citibank, Case No. 07-6032

The Debtor incurred over $210,000 in student loans seeking a doctoral degree in psychology. When she failed to obtain her degree, she filed for Chapter 11 and sought to have her loans discharged under §523(a)(8). At the time of her trial, approximately $180,000 of her student loans were held by ECMC and $30,000 were held by Sallie Mae; while the ECMC loans were subject to an Income Contingent Repayment Plan (ICRP), the Sallie Mae loans were not. The Debtor, relying upon In re Reynolds, 425 F.3d 526 (8th Cir. 2005), claimed that she suffered from depression that affected her ability to work and that was exacerbated by the existence of her loans. The court found that the Debtor suffered only from temporary depression that did not prevent her from being capable of obtaining employment in her field and earning an annual salary of about $40,000. However, using the totality of the circumstances approach followed by the 8th Circuit, set forth in In re Long, 322 F.3d 549 (8th Cir. 2003), the court found that requiring her to repay the Sallie Mae loans and a portion of the ECMC loans would pose an undue hardship on her, and were therefore dischargeable. The court examined the ICRP option available to the Debtor for the ECMC loans and found that, even if she was earning an annual salary of $40,000, her monthly payments calculated under the plan would pose an undue hardship when considered with her reasonable monthly expenditures.

Date of the decision: 11/20/08

For the full opinion click here.

WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI OPINIONS

Judge Dow Opinions

Judge Federman Opinions

Judge Venters Opinions


Written by Rachel Lynn Foley, Kansas City Missouri Bankruptcy Attorney.

STEVEN KETH MOWRIS and MARILYN SUE MOWRIS,Case No. 07-61100

Above-median Chapter 7 debtors are not permitted take a deduction on the means test for payments on loans against retirement accounts.

Date of opinion: 3/17/08

Click here for the full opinion.

In re Lisa Kay Weiser

The Hanging Paragraph of Section 1325(a) protects a purchase money creditor where the loan proceeds were used to not only finance the purchase of a new car, but also to pay off the lien on a separate car being traded in, if the evidence shows that the debtor would not have been able to purchase the new car unless the lien on the trade-in was paid off. Therefore, the creditor's purchase money security interest includes funds used to pay off the old car. In addition, the PMSI covers the portion of the loan used for gap insurance and an extended service warranty, since they represent expenses incurred in connection with acquiring rights in the vehicle.

Date of decision: 12/18/07

Full opinion click here.

In re VIKKI J. NICKERSON - Case No. 07-41889

If the effect of section 522(b)(3)'s domiciliary requirements is to render a debtor ineligible for any state's exemptions because the domiciliary state has opted out of the federal exemption scheme and does not permit non-residents from claiming the state's exemptions, the debtor may elect to exempt property under section 522(d).

Date of decision: 9/7/07

Full opinion here.

In re SHANTE LaSHELL RIDING - Case No. 07-42368

Following the Eighth Circuit BAP's decision in In re Frederickson, the Court deviates from its prior interpretation of "projected disposable income" under section 1325(b), and adopts a mechanical application of the numbers from Form 22C to determine whether a plan can be confirmed. Hence, the Court may no longer consider the debtor's actual circumstances for plan confirmation purposes.

Date of decision: 10/30/07

Full opinion here.