US Bankruptcy Court SDCA Docket Feed

In re Royal - Sol Acceptance Objection to Chapter 13 Plan Sustained

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California sustained Sol Acceptance LLC's objection to confirmation of debtors Ricol and Kimberly Royal's Chapter 13 plan. The court held that Royal failed to prove the 2011 Infiniti G37 was acquired predominantly for business use, making the Hanging Paragraph of 11 U.S.C. Section 1325(a) applicable and prohibiting bifurcation of SOL's $27,946.79 secured claim. The Chapter 13 plan was denied confirmation and the case was dismissed.

In re Sain - Homestead Proceeds Protection Under California Law

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California denied the Chapter 7 Trustee's motion for turnover of $75,000 in homestead proceeds received by debtor Douglas W. Sain from the sale of his residence at 11118 Mesa Top Place, San Diego. The Trustee argued Sain was not entitled to the proceeds because he did not acquire fee title to the property and did not reinvest the proceeds in a new homestead. The court held that California law protects the homestead proceeds despite the non-standard arrangement involving a lease and assignment to Sain's father to secure financing, rejecting both grounds for turnover. The decision relies on Ninth Circuit precedent establishing that homestead proceeds are not property of the estate once paid out.

Plys v. Ang (In re Ang) — Nondischargeability of Debt Under 11 U.S.C. § 1328(a)(4)

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of California held that the $10,150 state court judgment obtained by Joel Plys against Danilo Geronimo Ang, Jr. is nondischargeable in bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. § 1328(a)(4). The court found that Ang's conduct—sending harassing text messages about Plys's daughter's paternity over a four-and-a-half month period in 2015—constituted willful and malicious injury. Although the plaintiff's original claims under §§ 523(a)(2), (a)(4), and (a)(6) were dismissed as untimely, the court permitted amendment to proceed under § 1328(a)(4), which is not subject to Rule 4007's filing deadline.