In re Kvamme
United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of North Dakota
93 B.R. 698 (1988)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
Tim and Teri Kvamme (debtors) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The Kvammes submitted multiple proposed reorganization plans over nearly two years. At a hearing on the Kvammes’ third amended plan, the bankruptcy court warned the Kvammes that they had only one more chance to propose a confirmable plan. The Kvammes subsequently filed their fourth amended plan. Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) (creditor) objected to the plan. FmHA had a claim against the Kvammes for $174,234.72 and had elected under 11 U.S.C. § 1111(b) to have its claim treated as a secured claim. The Kvammes’ plan proposed to pay FmHA for the value of FmHA’s collateral, including (1) cattle with a market value of $45,400, amortized over 15 years with 9 percent interest and paid in 15 installments of $5,632.27 and (2) machinery with a market value of $5,600, amortized over seven years at 7 percent interest and paid in seven installments of $1,112.67. The total combined amount of these payments equaled $92,272.74. FmHA asserted that the plan did not reflect FmHA’s § 1111(b) election because the plan did not provide for FmHA to receive payment of its total allowed claim of $174,234.72. In addition to FmHA’s objection, another creditor moved to dismiss the bankruptcy proceeding based on the Kvammes’ failure to propose a confirmable plan.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hill, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.