The matter before the Court is the Chapter 13 trustee's motion for denial of plan confirmation.  The issue is whether an above-median income single debtor may claim operating expense and ownership expense for more than one vehicle on Form B22C.  The Court overruled the trustee's objection, finding that both the language of 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I) and precedent clearly support the position that an above-median income single debtor may claim two vehicle operating and ownership expenses.

The court denied the creditor's motion to alter or amend a judgment under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9023 (applying Fed. R. Civ. P. 59) because at trial, the creditor did not raise the arguments or present the evidence (an accounting of principal, interest, and costs) in the motion.  Further, the court held that even if the creditor had provided the statutory basis under 20 U.S.C. § 1091(b)(1) for its request for costs at trial, those costs would have been denied because the creditor did not act prudently as required under C.F.R. 682.410(a)(5)(iii) and the failure to act in a prudent manner during the pendency of the bankruptcy case was the cause of the decision to incur the costs.

The Court held that debtor's claims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process in state court are not property of the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541(a) because their factual basis occurred post-petition and thus the claims are not sufficiently rooted in pre-petition conduct, and that debtor's claims for tort of outrage, tortious interference with a business relationship, defamation, and negligent investigation and misrepresentation in state court are property of the estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541(a) because the facts supporting such claims all took place before the commencement of the bankruptcy case and thus the claims are sufficiently rooted in pre-petition conduct.  Further, the Court found that Segal v. Rochell, 382 U.S. 375 (1966) has not been superseded by the passage of the Bankruptcy Code, and that bankruptcy law rather than state law determines whether a debtor's interest is property of the estate.

Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, in part, under Rule 12(b)(6)  for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs filed adversary proceeding to determine dischargeability of certain debts under section 523(a)(2), (a)(4) and (a)(6) arising out of renovation and construction services. Court held that a simple breach of contract claim was not excepted from discharge pursuant to any of the referenced sections and dismissed the breach of contract count of the plaintiff's complaint. Court denied defendants' motion regarding the fraud in the inducement count as it appeared that the plaintiffs could establish the necessary elements for a finding of nondischargeability under section 523(a)(2)(A).