Judge Karlin's Guidelines For Obtaining A Default Judgment

Judge Karlin's Guidelines For Obtaining A Default Judgment

PDFClick here for the pdf document.

All templates are WordPerfect (version X3 or higher)

Click here for the Motion for Entry of Default by Clerk template.

Click here for the Motion for Default Judgment template.

Click here for the Default Judgment template.


April 16, 2012


Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, made applicable to adversaryproceedings by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7055, defaultencompasses two steps: (1) Entry of Default and (2) Default Judgment.1

STEP ONE: Entry of Default

Local Rule 5075.1 authorizes the bankruptcy clerk to sign and enter defaultin adversary proceedings. Entry of default is a procedural formality, and aprerequisite to the issuance of a default judgment.2 The party requesting anEntry of Default should file a “Motion for Entry of Default by the Clerk” withan affidavit, or other unsworn declaration made under penalty of perjury(e.g.,under 28 U.S.C. § 1746), attached. That Affidavit or Declaration shouldset forth the following facts:

Date of service of the complaint;
Date of issuance of the summons;
Date of filing of an affidavit of service;
Date a responsive pleading was due by virtue of Fed. R. Bankr. P.
7012 or any order of the Court;
Statement that no answer or motion has been received by thedate set by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7012 or an order of the Court;
Statement that the party against whom default is requested isnot a minor or incompetent person, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P.
55(b)(1); and
Statement, pursuant to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, “(A)
stating whether or not the defendant is in the military service
and showing necessary facts to support the affidavit; or (B) if theplaintiff is unable to determine whether or not the defendant is inthe military service, stating that the plaintiff is unable todetermine whether or not the defendant is in the military
1 10 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 55.10[1] (3d ed. 2001).

2 Id.; see also Garrett v. Seymour, 217 Fed. App’x 835, 838 (10th Cir. 2007) (“[T]heclerk had not entered default under Rule 55(a), a prerequisite for the entry of a defaultjudgment under Rule 55(b)(1).”).

service,”3 and why plaintiff is unable to so determine. In otherwords, what good faith effort have you made to determinemilitary status?4

A sample “Motion for Entry of Default by the Clerk” with attached supportingDeclaration is appended to these Guidelines as Attachment A.

STEP TWO: Default Judgment

The party seeking a default judgment should file a “Motion for DefaultJudgment” that sets forth that the party seeking default judgment is entitledto the relief sought based upon a proper showing of each element of eachclaim.5

No notice of the Motion for Default Judgment must be provided to thedefaulting Defendant unless the party has appeared personally or by arepresentative (and then did not file an answer or other responsive pleading).
If an appearance has been entered, you must serve a copy of the motion atleast 7 days before any hearing, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2).
Accordingly, the Motion for Default Judgment need not be “noticed” unlessthere has been an appearance. If there has been an appearance, the Courtwill wait the requisite 21 days for response to the dispositive motion,
pursuant to D. Kan. Rule 6.1(d)(2).

3 50 U.S.C. app. § 521 (emphasis added).

4 A party can request information from the Department of Defense (“DOD”) todetermine whether a person is in the military, and the DOD must issue a statement as tomilitary service. 50 U.S.C. app. § 582(b). Verification can be made electronically throughthe Defense Manpower Data Center (“DMDC”). The DMDC’s web site is located athttps://www.dmdc.osd.mil/scra/ows/home, and additional contact information is as follows:
Defense Manpower Data Center, Attn: Military Verification, 1600 Wilson Boulevard, Suite400, Arlington, VA 22209-2593, Telephone (703) 696-6762, Fax (703)696-4156.

5 See Bixler v. Foster, 596 F.3d 751, 762 (10th Cir. 2010) (“Even if an entry of defaulthad been appropriate, it would not have been sufficient to entitle plaintiffs to a judgment . .
. Once default is entered, it remains for the court to consider whether the unchallengedfacts constitute a legitimate cause of action, since a party in default does not admit mereconclusions of law. There must be a sufficient basis in the pleadings for the judgmententered.” (internal quotations and citations omitted)).


The Court will determine whether or not judgment should be entered andmay set the matter for hearing in order to make such determination.6 If, in
order to enable the Court to enter judgment, it is necessary to “conduct anaccounting,” “determine the amount of damages,” “establish the truth of anyallegation by evidence,” or “investigate any other matter,” the Court mayconduct such hearings or order such referrals as it deems necessary and

In very limited circumstances, default judgment may be entered by the Clerkunder Rule 55(b)(1), but only if the complaint seeks a “sum certain or a sumthat can be made certain by computation” and the plaintiff files a request forentry of default judgment with an affidavit or declaration of the amount due.8
However, in all other circumstances, Rule 55(b)(2) requires that defaultjudgment be entered by the Court. For instance, when a party against whomdefault is requested has served an answer or motion and then fails to appearat a court hearing, when relief other than money damages is requested, orwhen evidence is required to establish elements of claims or damages, defaultjudgment, if appropriate, must be entered by the Court.

A form “Motion for Default Judgment” is appended to these Guidelines asAttachment B. A form proposed order titled “Default Judgment” is appendedto these Guidelines as Attachment C.

6 The Court may require an actual evidentiary hearing when a party seeks a defaultjudgment on allegations of fraudulent intent. See, e.g., AT&T Universal Card Servs., Corp.

v. Sziel (In re Sziel), 206 B.R. 490, 495 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1997) (expressing the court’sreluctance to “rubber stamp” default judgment motions when allegations of fraudulentintent are conclusory). Even if the party against whom default is requested fails to appearat such hearing, the movant must present evidence of fraud and the requisite intent. See,
e.g., FCC Nat’l Bank v. Roberts (In re Roberts), 193 B.R. 828, 831–32 (Bankr. W.D. Mich.
1996) (credit card company denied default judgment because it failed to produce evidence ofdebtor’s intent to defraud).
7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b).

8 This “sum certain” requirement “means that the claim itself must be liquidated orfor a fixed and indisputable amount, even if some calculation is needed to determine thatamount.” 10 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice § 55.20[2] (3d ed. 2001). Aclaim for a specific amount does not necessarily make the sum certain. World Alliance
Consulting, Inc. v. DocPlanet.com, Inc., 57 Fed. App’x 390, 392 (10th Cir. 2003).



Tips for Filing Reaffirmation Agreements in Cases Before Judge Karlin

Tips for Filing Reaffirmation Agreements in Cases Before Judge Karlin

PDFClick here for the pdf document.

Tips for Filing Reaffirmation Agreements
in Cases Before Judge Karlin

April 16, 2012

Make sure that all blanks are filled in and the forms are
I routinely receive forms with missing or incomplete information.
Without all of the information required by the reaffirmation agreementform (Form 240-A) and the required cover sheet (Form B27), the Courtcannot process the Reaffirmation Agreement and will issue an order to

Attach a copy of the note, mortgage, security agreement, or
other relevant documentation to the reaffirmation agreement.
When copies of the relevant documentation are attached, I can reviewthe documentation if questions arise about the agreement, includingwhether there is perfection.

Check your calculations.
If the numbers on the reaffirmation agreement, particularly Part D orthe Cover Sheet, do not add up, you may be required to appear at ahearing and explain the inconsistencies or errors.

Do not ignore orders to correct from the Court.
Although 99% of lawyers would never ignore a court order,
reaffirmation agreements are routinely stricken because the partiesfailed to comply with a Court order to correct the reaffirmationagreement or provide additional information. Orders to correct provideyou an opportunity to fix these errors by supplementing or amendingthe reaffirmation agreement rather than appearing at a hearing toexplain the errors.

Disclose the debtor’s current income and expenses, and explain
any values that differ from those in Schedules I and J.
The reaffirmation agreement and accompanying cover sheet require you

to disclose the income and expenses listed on Schedules I and J (i.e., attime of filing the petition) as well as the debtor’s current income andexpenses as of the date of the filing of the reaffirmation agreement. Ifthose values differ, you must explain the difference. Significant swings,
without explanation, do nothing but raise my concerns about thewisdom of the reaffirmation agreement.

Make sure your explanations are complete, accurate and make
I often see reaffirmation agreements where the parties claim thatincome has increased or expenses have decreased since the filing of thecase. These changes must be explained by giving specific information,
such as “Debtors have surrendered their second car and no longer havethat payment,” or “Debtors have reduced their food costs by $50 by noteating out as often and have reduced their transportation costs by $75by carpooling to work.” If your explanation is simply “income hasincreased” or “Debtors have cut back on expenses,” or, worse yet, “myclient needs the car,” you will receive an order to correct to providemore information or an order setting the matter for hearing. You cansave everyone time and effort by providing the explanation on the formwhen it is originally filed.

Also, make sure that your explanation is accurate. For example, Irecently reviewed a reaffirmation agreement where the debtorsexplained a $400 reduction in monthly expenses by stating “Debtorshave reduced their spending on groceries and charitable giving.” That
explanation was not sufficient when Schedule J showed $350 per monthtotal for those two expenses; the matter was set for hearing.

File your reaffirmation agreement within 60 days of the
original date set for the 341 meeting.
Rule 4008 requires that a reaffirmation agreement be filed within 60days of the first date set for the 341 meeting. This will ensure that thereaffirmation agreement is on file prior to the entry of discharge. Iroutinely grant motions for extension of time to file reaffirmationagreements, which will also delay the entry of discharge until the newdeadline has expired. If the reaffirmation agreement is filed after the


entry of discharge, I will strike the reaffirmation agreement. Inaddition, I have found that the discharge order should not be set asidefor the purpose of allowing the filing of a (late) reaffirmationagreement, as explained in In re Kellison, Order Denying Motion to
Vacate, Case No. 08-40480, Doc. 30 (Jan. 5, 2009).

If you are an attorney, your representation of the debtor does
not end even if you do not sign Part C of the reaffirmation
agreement—you must attend any hearing.
The Court considers reaffirmation agreements to be an integral part ofthe Chapter 7 bankruptcy process, and will not allow attorneys to limitthe scope of their representation to exclude any involvement in thereaffirmation agreement process. The Court recognizes that attorneysmay have a variety of reasons why they elect not to sign Part C of theagreement. However, you will be required to appear in Court to providelegal counsel to your client at any hearing on any reaffirmationagreement, whether you signed the agreement or not.

Reaffirmation Hearings by telephone.
If you or your client live or work a distance from the courthouse thatmakes it unduly burdensome to appear for a reaffirmation hearing, askfor a telephone hearing. I do not think these hearings are as effective inconveying Congressional intent about reaffirmation agreements ashearings where the debtors are in the courtroom, but I am grantingrequests when appropriate.


Bench Warrant Guidelines

Bench Warrant Guidelines

PDFClick here for the pdf document.

Bench Warrants

rev. February 7, 2011Judge Karlin’s Guidelines

To assure the sanctity of this Court’s orders for turnover, appearance, etc.,
the Court may issue a Bench Warrant directed to the United States MarshalsService to bring the party who has failed to comply with a court order (hereafter“offender”) before the Court to show cause why the Court should not find theoffender in contempt.1 Bench Warrants are usually granted only after the offenderhas had significant notice of the existence of the court order requiring certainaction, and the USMS-Topeka division also usually sends a warning letter to theoffender upon receipt of a Bench Warrant indicating that if the matter is notimmediately resolved, the USMS will bring the offender before the Court. This
letter is not required by this Court; this is left to the discretion of the USMS.

Processing Bench Warrants takes valuable time from other important USMSbusiness. The Court is aware that sometimes, when the USMS has physicallylocated the offender at a residence, job site, or otherwise, the offender represents tothe USMS that he has, in fact, complied, or the offender requests additional time tocomply. The Court has recently been made aware that frequently the offender hasnot, in fact, complied, or, upon being given additional time, does not comply. The
Court has directed the USMS to proceed to bring the offender in on a
Bench Warrant the first time, leaving the task of determining whether
there has been compliance to the Court. This will result in more offenders
being detained and brought before the Court, which counsel for represented partiesshould communicate to their clients.

USMS Procedure

It is the Court’s understanding that the USMS will proceed in the following mannerupon receipt of a Bench Warrant from the Clerk’s Office:

Clerk’s Office will provide USMS with a copy of the Bench Warrant andcurrent address (work and home if available) for offender, as well as SSN;
USMS-Topeka Division will likely send a letter or make other informalcontact with the offender, but is not required to do so;
USMS staff will check with Court personnel to verify Judge Karlin’s schedulebefore Marshal staff proceed to apprehend the offender;
Court contacts: Donna Johnson (785-338-5964); Donna Urbom-McClure (785338-
5912) or Joyce Ridgeway (785-338-5913);
Offender will be detained by USMS pending an appearance before theBankruptcy Judge.;
1 The party requesting the Bench Warrant is responsible for preparing and uploading the
warrant for my signature.

Judge Karlin’s Bench Warrant Guidelines
Page 2

If an offender is apprehended by the USMS for purpose of forcing offender toappear at a show cause hearing, the following policies are applicable:
The USMS is not responsible for providing return transportation to theoffender;
The Court will award costs to the USMS for its time and expensesincurred in processing these warrants. Costs must be paid before thedebtor will receive a discharge, if the debtor is the offender.


Report to Improve Chapter 13 Docket

Report to Improve Chapter 13 Docket

PDFClick here for the pdf document.

Judge Karlin’s Report
from Meeting held April 30, 2012
to increase Chapter 13 docket efficiencies

I reported at a recent Bench Bar Committee meeting that the number ofcases on our afternoon Chapter 13 dockets—both the continued confirmation docketheld at the end of the month and the Miscellaneous Chapter 13 docket held midmonth—
was causing some problems. The main problem I identified was that someunlucky attorneys could get stuck with settings at the beginning and at the end ofthe docket, causing them to spend 3 to 3.5 hours for their two matters to be heard. Iasked two members of the Bench Bar Committee (Paul Post and Lee Hendricks) aswell as two other members representing mostly creditors (Wes Smith and TomValentine) to meet with me, members of my staff, members of the Clerk’s staff, andJan Hamilton and Teresa Rhodd to help me evaluate the problem and develop somesolutions.

Causes of the Problem

We first tried to identify the causes of why there are often so many cases onthese dockets. The obvious first answer is that attorneys seek, and I then grant,
many (often too many) continuances. This causes cases to get called month aftermonth without effective action between dockets. These continuances are frequentlycaused by debtors who do not respond to calls and letters from their counsel,
attorneys who do not appear to attempt to resolve pending matters untilimmediately before (or at) the docket— including failure to make an attempt tomake telephone or face to face contact with the debtor (or the trustee or theobjecting creditor) before the docket— failure to turnover documents that have beenordered to be filed or are obviously needed (e.g., tax returns, BIOCT information,
waivers of statute of limitations, conduit payment information, etc.), failure to dowhat the attorney promised to do the prior month, or failure to do so timely (e.g.,
filing amended I/J, motions to amend the plan, motion to abate, etc.). Continuancesare also occasionally caused by law firms who send lawyers who do not know whattheir client is doing (e.g., loan modifications, accepting payments in the face of theirown motion relief from stay, etc.), or those same firms hiring local counsel who arenot informed of client action or action by the firm, itself. And recently, there havebeen many Motions to Compel turnover of tax returns, which may be a seasonablephenomenon. On that issue, I hope a change in culture will result in many fewerobjections being filed so those motions do not end up getting set for hearing.1

1 I have recently noted at the docket that unless your client has, in fact, filed the
requested tax return such that the motion to compel should be denied, it does not help to file a
response that simply indicates that “the debtor is working on the return,” or “the debtor will file
the return within a reasonable time,” or “the debtor filed the return but didn’t keep a copy, so is

Suggestions to Cure or Reduce the Length of the Dockets

At the meeting, many suggestions were discussed. Many of those came fromthe bar as a result of our solicitation of ideas. Those include:

Do not announce the names of the debtors/case numbers on theconfirmation list—just post the list OR better yet, have theconfirmation orders signed before the hearing date (when there are notimely objections) so that the hearing event can be officially terminatedon the CM/ECF system;
If an attorney has two or fewer cases on the docket, set those cases tothe beginning of the docket;
Call at the beginning of the docket all cases where a creditor’s lawyer
Set more “drop dead” deadlines, and follow through with a timelydismissal order if dismissal was the consequence established at ahearing (e.g., cure arrearage or file motion to abate within 14 days orcase will be dismissed, get tax return on file within 21 days, or casewill be dismissed, file I and J that show debtor can afford the planincrease, or case will be dismissed, etc.);
Set contested matters to trial more quickly;
Eliminate responses that are so generic as to be unhelpful, such as“debtor will take care of the problem within a reasonable time;”
instead, require the pleading to indicate debtor’s plan to resolve theproblem;
Recognize cases that need greater than one month for something to bedone or to happen, and continue the case for the correct period of time(e.g., continue for 2 months instead of 1 when waiting for a refund
trying to find a copy from H&R Block,” or “the debtor can’t locate his W-2.” These responses
effectively admit the return is due; their only purpose is to explain why debtor hasn’t already
done what is required, and potentially how much longer it will be before the return is produced.
Such responses appear to be aimed at buying the debtor time, and if the only purpose of a
pleading is for the purpose of delay, there may be ethical issues that accompany such a response.
See, e.g., Kan. Rules of Prof’l Conduct 3.1 (“A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or
assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous . .
.”). The far more efficient response is to contact the Trustee indicating that you will either
approve the order granting the motion to compel (or, better yet, not object to it in the first
instance), but that the debtor needs “x” number of days to comply, outlining the problem. And if
the debtor is not required to file a return, the appropriate response is to file a tax affidavit so
stating, signed by your client under penalty of perjury along with any response to the motion to
compel. This typically results in the Trustee withdrawing the motion to compel.


check for return just filed, or real property has to be sold and there is acontract signed, etc.);

Continue to discourage responses on motions to compel (see n.1, above)
when the response’s real purpose is merely to buy debtor more time;
Reverse the order cases are called on the afternoon confirmation
docket, under the assumption that the oldest cases on the docket havehad the most continuances, are likely more problematic, and otherattorneys should not have to wait for yet another argument on theaging case;
Set a deadline before which attorneys can ask the Trustee to orallyannounce continuances (e.g., at least 24 hours before commencement ofthe docket), with result being attorneys would have to attend thedocket themselves to ask for a continuance if they do not make contactwith the Trustee by that cutoff time. This would also potentially allowthe Trustee to get a list of cases to the Clerk and chambers where theTrustee recommends a continuance so those hearings could be“terminated” by the Clerk with a text order of continuance so thematter would not need to be called/appearances entered, continuanceorally requested with explanation why needed—all of which consumetime;
Figure out a way to encourage attorneys who are dilatory in preparingfor dockets to prepare farther in advance, and to return phone calls oremails from opposing counsel to resolve issues in advance of thedocket;
Encourage attorneys to carefully review the Trustee’s “after-docket”
summary, which typically shows what happened on each case at thedocket, and any action required;
Have a courtroom deputy available 20 minutes before the docket, as wedo in Chapter 7 cases, to take continuances;
Separate motions to dismiss for non-payment from other motions on amiscellaneous docket;
Separate out cases where someone other than Trustee is objecting(since Trustee has to be there for whole docket anyway), and call thosecases first;
Schedule the docket based on the number of cases each attorney has onthe docket, smallest to largest;
Have the Clerk run the docket as early as possible after the cutoff datefor objections so the Trustee has additional time to work up the cases;
Identify cases early with several difficult issues, or which have severallawyers, and continue those before the docket to a status conference;
Discourage setting matters straight to the docket (without an objectiondeadline), as those cases will have to be called when there mightotherwise be no objection.

Considerations mitigating against adoption of some suggestions

Many of the suggestions, while excellent, are not practical or advisable as aresult of some of the following considerations:

The length of time it takes the Trustee to thoroughly prepare for thedockets (and the need for uninterrupted and sometimes weekendtime);2
Our CM/ECF program, which does not allow the Clerk to easily sort byattorney, or to identify how many cases a particular attorney has on adocket (without hand counting, which is inefficient);
The chambers automation program (CHAP) I use to prepare for eachhearing (on which I take notes before hearings and which I consult andon which I take notes during hearings). CHAP does not allow me tomove quickly between cases unless they are contiguous—and eventhen the system is sometimes very slow. I’m not eager to go back to thepaper world if we can avoid it;
Placing all cases for larger volume filers at the end of the docket justrequires creditors in those cases to wait until the end, PLUS, thedebtors’ lawyers might not elect to arrive before the docket is called—
eliminating a chance to make deals prior to the docket (assuming it isproper to wait until that late in the first instance!);3
The length of time it takes for the Clerk (and the fact we cannot
2 As an aside, this Trustee saves all our practitioners (and me) time by 1) thoroughly
preparing for dockets and disseminating clear notes a few days before the docket about the status
of each case and what remains to be done; 2) using that thorough preparation to be able to
quickly summarize issues during hearings; and 3) following through after the docket with “afteraction”
notes that are again disseminated so that practitioners can take immediate steps (so as to
be able to avoid future continuances on their cases). The Trustee also often sends letters to those
attorneys who, without excuse, have simply failed to appear on the docket or contact the Trustee
in advance, to advise what that attorney missed and what needs to be done. This latter category
of work should not be necessary; no attorney should need that kind of “babysitting” by a Trustee.

3 I am well aware we have a few “docket day practitioners,” meaning those attorneys
who wait until immediately before the docket to return calls, seek continuances from the Trustee,
attempt to contact their clients, negotiate deals, etc. Lawyers who practice this way (and luckily,
we have very few of them) cost every other lawyer, the Clerk’s staff, and this judge, precious
time. They should be discouraged from taking bankruptcy cases, since this practice, because of
its volume, requires a more organized approach. And if these lawyers wish to remain a
bankruptcy practitioner but cannot handle their business in a more timely manner, they should
accept fewer cases.


always immediately spare a courtroom deputy to do this) to terminatehearings so they do not get called (for last minute continuances).


We are going to take “baby steps” to try to reduce the size of these docketsand decrease the total time attorneys will have to spend waiting for matters to becalled. Here are the solutions we are going to implement immediately:

Reverse the order we call the afternoon confirmation docket;
Run the docket on Wednesday instead of Thursday so the Trustee’soffice can get a head start on its preparation;
Discontinue reading the names of the debtors/case numbers on theconfirmation list—just post the list (OR better yet, have theconfirmation orders signed before the hearing date when no objectionshave been filed, if the Trustee’s schedule/systems allow);
Encourage Trustee to abbreviate oral entry of appearance;
Continue to set more “drop dead” deadlines, and follow through with atimely dismissal order if dismissal was the consequence established ata hearing;
Set more back up trial dates to encourage reasonably promptnegotiation (e.g., if you don’t get a valuation worked out, theappraisal/valuation evidence will be heard on particular stacked docketdays);
Recognize cases that need greater than one month for something to bedone or to happen, and continue the case for the correct period of time(e.g., 2 months instead of 1 when waiting for refund check for returnjust filed or real property has to be sold and there is a contract signed,
Continue to discourage responses on motions to compel (see n.1, above)
when the response’s purpose is merely to obtain a hearing for thepurpose of delay;
Discourage setting matters straight to the docket (without an objectiondeadline), as those cases will have to be called when there mightotherwise be no objection;
Identify early those cases with several difficult issues, or which haveseveral lawyers, and which may take more than 2-3 minutes on thedocket, and continue those before the docket to a status conference;
Encourage attorneys to carefully review the Trustee’s “after-docket”
summary for your cases, so if you were not at the docket, you can get aquick start on solving the problem that is delaying resolution of the

Thank you

I wish to thank the lawyers who took time to make suggestions, and thosewho participated in the meeting. If anyone has additional ideas, please feel free tosend them to me, as I wish to consider all practical and effective ways to make thesedockets run more quickly. We will give these a try and re-evaluate periodically.

Jan Karlin
May 3, 2012



Judge Karlin Earned Income Credit Exemption Cases

PDFClick here for the pdf document In re Beach, 12-40906 (Bankr. D. Kan. Apr. 29, 2013), Doc. 43

PDFClick here for the pdf document In re Murray, 12-41579 (Bankr. D. Kan. Apr. 29, 2013), Doc. 53

 PDFClick here for the pdf document General Order Governing 2013 EIC Cases (dated 4/1/2013)

 PDFClick here for the pdf document General Order Governing 2012 EIC Cases (dated 9/18/2012)

PDFClick here for the pdf document Case Management Order (dated 11/1/2011)

PDFClick here for the pdf document First Supplement (dated 3/19/2012)

PDFClick here for the pdf document General Order Governing Challenges to the Constitutionality of the EIC Exemptions Filed After March 12, 2012 (dated 4/2/2012)

PDFClick here for the pdf document Procedure Governing 2012 EIC Objections (dated 6/5/2012)

PDFClick here for the pdf document In Re Westby, 11-40986 (Bankr. D. Kan. Apr. 4, 2012) Doc. # 45


You are here: Home