In re Shea

52 Citing cases

  1. In re Dolan

    Bk. No. 05-15683-JMD, Adv. No. 05-1211-JMD (Bankr. D.N.H. Nov. 28, 2006)   Cited 2 times

    Accordingly, the Court must first determine whether a debt is owed to the Plaintiff, and if so in what amount. If a debt is the kind described in § 523(a)(15), it is nondischargeable unless one of two tests is satisfied: (1) the debtor is unable to pay the debt from income or property not reasonably necessary for maintenance or support; or (2) the benefits of a discharge to the debtor outweigh the detrimental effects of such a discharge on a spouse, former spouse, or child.See Hadley, 239 B.R. at 436; Shea v. Shea (In re Shea), 221 B.R. 491, 499 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1998). Thus, the Plaintiff must show that neither of these two tests is satisfied. If either of the two tests is satisfied, then the debt is dischargeable.

  2. In re Hadley

    239 B.R. 433 (Bankr. D.N.H. 1999)   Cited 18 times
    Concluding that the creditor bears the burden of production of evidence and persuasion on all elements of § 523 except that the debtor has the burden of production on his ability or inability to repay the obligation

    See Plaintiff's Complaint and Debtor's Answer. Accordingly, the threshold requirements of § 523(a)(15) are satisfied. Once these initial requirements are met, § 523(a)(15) presumes the relevant debt to be nondischargeable, unless either one of two conditions is shown to exist: (A) the debtor is unable to pay the debt; or (B) the benefits of a discharge to the debtor outweigh the detrimental effects of such a discharge on a spouse, former spouse, or child. See Shea v. Shea (In re Shea), 221 B.R. 491, 499 (Bankr. D.Minn. 1998). Thus, if either of these conditions can be shown to exist, then the relevant debt is dischargeable. Viewed from the Plaintiff's perspective, both of these conditions must be shown not to exist for the debt to remain nondischargeable (i.e., it must be shown that the debtor is able to pay the debt and that the detrimental effects of the discharge to the spouse, former spouse, or child outweigh the benefit to the debtor).

  3. Kroesen v. Kroesen

    Case No. 18-42624-can13 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. May. 1, 2020)

    "For purposes of... [§ 523(a)(2)(A)], it is true, the misrepresentation generally must 'relate to a present or past fact,' and a promise to pay in future, even if false, is not such a misrepresentation." Brzakala, 305 B.R. at 711 (citing Shea v. Shea (In re Shea), 221 B.R. 491, 496 (Bankr. D.Minn. 1998)). "A promise to pay made with a present intention not to perform, however, will satisfy the misrepresentation requirement."

  4. IN RE LINT

    Case No. 01-05529-CH, Adv. No. 02-20003 (Bankr. S.D. Iowa Jan. 14, 2004)

    § 1325(b), the "disposable income test" is a good starting point for the analysis. In re Jodoin, 209 B.R. at 142; Shea v. Shea (In re Shea), 221 B.R. 491, 499 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1998); In re Hill, 184 B.R. at 755. However, the scope of the court's inquiry must necessarily be broad in order to determine the debtor's actual ability to pay.

  5. In re Brown

    302 B.R. 637 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa 2003)   Cited 15 times

    The Court also considers any income earned by Debtor's spouse or live-in companion. Eiklenborg, 286 B.R. at 722 (citing In re Shea, 221 B.R. 491 (Bankr. D.Minn. 1998)). The Shea court stated:

  6. In re O'Shaughnessy

    301 B.R. 24 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa 2003)   Cited 16 times
    Finding that dissolution settlement agreement created new obligation for one-half of joint debt to third party

    In considering Debtors ability to pay this debt, the Court may consider the income of a new spouse. Eiklenborg, 286 B.R. at 722 (citing In re Shea, 221 B.R. 491 (Bankr.D.Minn. 1998)). The court in Shea stated:

  7. IN RE SUHR

    Case No. 01-4713-CH, Adv. No. 01-20135 (Bankr. S.D. Iowa Jun. 20, 2003)

    As the language is almost identical to that of 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b), the "disposable income test" is a good starting point for the analysis. In re Jodoin, 209 B.R. at 142; Shea v. Shea (In re Shea), 221 B.R. 491, 499 (Bankr.D.Minn. 1998); In re Hill, 184 B.R. at 755. However, the scope of the court's inquiry must necessarily be broad in order to determine the debtor's actual ability to pay.

  8. In re Bartmess

    Bankruptcy No. 02-02265 Adversary No. 02-9132 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa Apr. 23, 2003)

    When conducting a § 523(a)(15) analysis, it is appropriate for a court to take into account the income of a second spouse or live-in companion. In re Shea, 221 B.R. 491, 499 (Bankr.D.Minn. 1998). The court in Shea stated:

  9. In re Eiklenborg

    286 B.R. 718 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa 2002)   Cited 17 times

    When conducting a § 523(a)(15) analysis, it is appropriate for a court to take into account the income of a second spouse. In re Shea, 221 B.R. 491, 499 (Bankr.D.Minn. 1998). The court in Shea stated:

  10. In re Quick

    Case No. 98-4868-DH, Adv. No. 99-99022 (Bankr. S.D. Iowa Aug. 12, 2002)

    As the language is almost identical to that of 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b), the "disposable income test" is a good starting point for the analysis. In re Jodoin, 209 B.R. at 142; Shea v. Shea (In re Shea), 221 B.R. 491, 499 (Bankr.D.Minn. 1998); In re Hill, 184 B.R. at 755. However, the scope of the court's inquiry must necessarily be broad in order to determine the debtor's actual ability to pay.