Skip to main content
S.D. California· 11/29/2010

In Re Hill

Citations

  • 440 B.R. 176
  • 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 4184
  • 2010 WL 4873054

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • permitting Chapter 20 lien stripping but requiring plan that “otherwise complies with the requirements of the Code”
  • applying the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Zimmer, and concluding that a lien that is unsecured under Sections 506(a) and 1322(b) must also be unsecured under Section 1325(a)
  • chapter 20 lien strips are permitted absent discharge so long as plan otherwise complies with Code requirements
  • “Since the ... debt was already discharged, or changed to non-recourse status in the Chapter 7 case, a second discharge for the Debtors in this Chapter 13 case would be redundant.”
  • chapter 20 lien strips are 19 permitted absent discharge so long as plan otherwise complies with 20 Code requirements
  • “Section 1325(a)(5) has no applicability to unsecured claims. . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Margaret M. Mann

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

31 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

28 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.