The court considered two issues common to three chapter 7 bankruptcies, which were: (1) whether debtors may redeem property pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 722 by paying the redemption amount in installments, over creditors' objections; and (2) does the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(5) continue to prevent action against property that reverts to debtor, either by abandonment or exemption? The court determined that debtors must pay their redemption payment in full in order to impose a redemption right on an unwilling creditor, but courts may allow debtors up to 30 days from the determination of the redemption amount within which to make that payment. Installment payments may be negotiated with a creditor, but an enforceable agreement is required, subject to the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 524(c) for reaffirmation agreements. The court further concluded that the automatic stay continues to cover property that reverts to debtors, or that is acquired postpetition, until one of three acts set forth in § 362(c)(2) occurs. Debtors' requests to redeem property in installments were denied, and debtors were given 10 days in which to redeem in full. However, creditors could not repossess their collateral until either they obtained relief from stay, their debtors' case was closed or dismissed, or a discharge decision was entered.

Debtors in four cases filed complaints against Avco seeking to avoid its liens on their personal property, and Avco moved to dismiss. The court considered whether the 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(2) lien avoidance provisions applied to security interests created prior to enactment of the Bankruptcy Code, and if so, whether the provisions were constitutional. The court explained that § 522(f)(2) was intended to avoid nonpossessory, non-purchase money liens to the extent they impair exemptions for certain living necessities, tools of trade, and health aids, then concluded that both the statute's language and legislative analysis indicated that § 522(f) was intended by Congress to be retroactive. In considering whether retroactive application of the statute was constitutional, the court concluded that no substantive due process rights outweighed the congressional power to regulate bankruptcies. At most, the court held that the Constitution required a rational connection between § 522(f) and the purpose of its enactment, which was to eliminate certain "evils" in the credit industry. The court held that, under the presumption of constitutionality that was afforded the statute, it would be inappropriate to conclude that § 522(f) does not rationally relate to that purpose and, therefore, the statute was constitutional. Avco's motions to dismiss were denied.

Debtors purchased two motorcycles from lender pursuant to a purchase money security agreement, which was never perfected. In debtors' chapter 7 proceeding, trustee filed an adversary complaint against lender seeking to set aside its interest under 11 U.S.C. § 544, and to preserve the lien for the estate under 11 U.S.C. § 551. Lender stipulated to the relief sought by trustee. The court ruled that trustee's hypothetical judicial lien was automatically preserved for the estate by § 551, but that debtors were still subject to lender's contractual claim. Debtors claimed an exemption in the motorcycles under 11 U.S.C. § 522(d)(5), which the court determined would not be available to them unless they established an "aggregate interest" in the property, which would require them to either avoid lender's lien, which still bound them under state law and exceeded the property's value, or obtain the benefit of trustee's avoidance of that lien. Such powers would only be provided by the exemption statute, and the court considered subsections (c), (f), (g), and (h) of § 522, concluding that none of those provisions would allow debtors' to claim an exemption.

Debtors sold a home in Washington state to plaintiffs, who incurred expenses getting the home up to code. In a state court action, plaintiffs obtained a judgment against debtors, in which that court found that debtors had "materially misrepresented the condition of" the home, which proximately caused plaintiffs' damages. Debtors filed a bankruptcy petition, and plaintiffs filed a complaint in the bankruptcy court under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2), alleging their judgment was non-dischargeable. The court noted that, based on principles of res judicata, a valid final judgment could not be re-litigated. However, when the issue between the parties is dischargeability, res judicata is inapplicable, but collateral estoppel might bar the re-litigation of issues that were litigated to the same standards that apply in bankruptcy. Comparing Washington state law misrepresentation standards with the standards of § 523(a)(2), the court concluded the standards were essentially the same. Therefore, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted.