In re Wilson

3 Citing cases

  1. In re Arndt

    Case No. 17-30226 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio Nov. 6, 2017)   Cited 7 times

    , In re Stillwell, 348 B.R. 578, 581 n.6 (Bankr. N.D. Okla. 2006)("[w]here the amount of the scheduled payments due on the reaffirmed debt (as disclosed in the debtor's statement) exceeds the debtor's available income.")(emphasis added); In re Wilson, 363 B.R. 220, 224 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2007)("Thus it is simply not accurate to check the "undue hardship" box if the statutory Part D numbers do not show a deficit when the reaffirmed monthly payment is taken into account.")(emphasis added).

  2. In re Minardi

    399 B.R. 841 (Bankr. N.D. Okla. 2009)   Cited 30 times
    Stating "[b]ecause reaffirmation constitutes a debtor-invoked exception to the tenet that underpins the bankruptcy system—the 'fresh start' principle—a reaffirming debtor must be afforded some protection against his own (potentially) short-sighted decisions"

    § 524(m). See In re Wilson, 363 B.R. 220, 224 (Bankr. D.N.M.2007); In re Laynas, 345 B.R. 505, 512 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.2006) (review under § 524(m) is required even where debtor is represented by counsel). There has been no showing that the presumption applies in this case.

  3. In re Minardi

    Case No. 08-11774-M (Bankr. N.D. Okla. Jan. 23, 2009)

    § 524(m). See In re Wilson, 363 B.R. 220, 224 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2007); In re Laynas, 345 B.R. 505, 512 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2006) (review under § 524(m) is required even where debtor is represented by counsel). There has been no showing that the presumption applies in this case.