%1

A district court opinion from Michigan raises the question of whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Marrama is still good law after Law v. Siegel.

When, post-confirmation, a chapter 13 debtor sells his or her home, who gets the benefit of the appreciation: the debtor, or his or her creditors? Judge Randon in Michigan adopted the so-called “estate replenishment approach” and held that sale proceeds derived from post-confirmation appreciation of a home belong to the debtor.

Although not held in an IRA, a refund by the IRS of a withdrawal penalty was exempt because state law permits tracing proceeds of exemptions, Judge Opperman says.

An election for having a tax refund applied to the following year’s taxes can result in the loss of discharge.

Waiting four years to raise discharge as a defense does not invoke equitable estoppel or laches.

Even though received within 180 days of filing, a distribution from an IRA to a death beneficiary does not become estate property.

The Supreme Court is considering whether to review another case defining the safe harbor in Section 546(e).

Even after the statute of limitations has run, a trustee may be substituted for the debtor as the real party in interest, Michigan district judge says.

Detroit’s Judge Randon holds that a chapter 13 plan’s five-year duration begins to run from the first payment, not from confirmation.

Although Social Security benefits are not subject to the “operation of any bankruptcy or insolvency law,” judge says they can be considered in deciding whether someone should be allowed to confirm a chapter 13 plan or have a chapter 7 case dismissed for ‘abuse.’