Macomb bankrutpcy and divorce.

In re: Emery, Glazebrook v Emery, ___ F Supp 2d ___ (WD Mich 2010)
Husband and wife consolidated their student loans during their marriage. Their divorce judgment required them to divide repayment of the consolidated loan in the same proportion as the debt they incurred, 54% husband, 46% wife. During the divorce, wife filed for bankruptcy protection, receiving her discharge the day the judgment was entered. The federal court, affirming the bankruptcy court decision, held that wife’s obligation to repay 46% of the consolidated loan was an obligation under the divorce judgment. That made it a post-petition debt, arising the day the judgment was entered, so it was not discharged in the earlier-filed bankruptcy. It refused to reopen the bankruptcy, nearly 9 years, later, to allow the debt to be discharged. www.attorneybankert.com

MACOMB BANKRUPTCY AND DIVORCE

　 IS YOUR CASE IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN BANKRUPTCY COURT? BANKRUPTCY FLINT / BAY CITY ,ATTORNEY POSTING BY Flint / Bay City Bankruptcy Attorney Terry R. Bankert 810-235-1970. Flint /BAY CITY Bankruptcy lawyer Terry R. Bankert , http://www.attorneybankert.com If you have bankruptcy questions call today 810-235-1970 this article presented in a SEO format.We are a debt relief agency that assists consumers filing for Bankruptcy. 　 2. Core Proceedings §1.7 Bankruptcy judges may hear and decide all core proceedings and may enter orders and judgments in those proceedings subject to appellate review. 28 USC 157(b)(1). Examples of core proceedings are listed in 28 USC 157(b)(2) and include (1) motions to lift the automatic stay, (2) actions to recover fraudulent conveyances and preferences, and (3) determinations whether certain debts are dischargeable. Also included on the list are “other proceedings affecting the liquidation of the assets of the estate or the adjustment of the debtor-creditor or the equity security holder relationship.” 28 USC 157(b)(2)(O). For decisions construing the scope of core proceedings, see In re Pioneer Inv Servs Co, 946 F2d 445 (6th Cir 1991); Bliss Techs, Inc v HMI Indus (In re Bliss Techs, Inc) (In re Bliss Techs, Inc), 307 BR 598 (ED Mich 2004); and In re Marshall, 118 BR 954 (WD Mich 1990). In In re Moses, 225 BR 360 (ED Mich 1998), District Judge Gerald Rosen held that the bankruptcy court had subject-matter jurisdiction to determine the validity of a claim against a nondebtor corporation whose stock was held by a bankruptcy trustee. This proceeding was held to be “core” under 28 USC 157(b)(2).