In re Wrobel, 525 B.R. 211

Debtor (low income, ~$30,000/yr) purchased a condominium for $75,000 cash from a future son‑in‑law shortly after receiving roughly $101,000 from a matrimonial settlement; Hogan Willig (former matrimonial counsel) later obtained a state court judgment for fees in excess of $96,000.
Debtor filed Chapter 13 and claimed a homestead exemption in the condominium; court previously ruled (In re Wrobel) that § 522(o) did not defeat her exemption, subject to conditions.
Debtor proposed a Chapter 13 plan paying roughly 10% of Hogan Willig’s claim over five years and keeping the residence essentially lien‑free (save a small mortgage to her daughter).
Hogan Willig objected, asserting the plan lacked “good faith” under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(3) and sought to probe privileged communications under the crime‑fraud exception; it also moved for reconsideration of the court’s § 522(o) ruling.
The court found undisputed facts sufficient to rule the Plan lacks good faith (debtor bought residence after being sued and with funds partly traceable to Hogan Willig’s representation), denied late reconsideration, granted subpoena quash for the son‑in‑law’s counsel, and scheduled dismissal if debtor does not file an amended “highest and best” plan by a set date.

Issue	Debtor's Argument	Hogan Willig's Argument	Held
Validity of homestead exemption under 11 U.S.C. § 522(o)	§ 522(o) does not defeat exemption here (court previously ruled in Debtor’s favor)	§ 522(o) should reduce or deny exemption because funds were disposed with intent to hinder creditors	Court previously ruled § 522(o) did not defeat the exemption; that decision remains subject to appeal but was not altered here.
Plan confirmation — good faith under 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(3)	Meeting disposable income test and having exempt assets suffices; 10% payout is reasonable given income	Plan is a bad‑faith attempt to shield property purchased after suit with funds traceable to Hogan Willig’s services; plan extracts too many advantages	Court held the Plan is not proposed in good faith and rejected it without further hearing.
Use of privileged communications (crime‑fraud exception)	Debtor sought to protect attorney‑client communications with current counsel	Hogan Willig sought to invoke crime‑fraud exception to probe those communications and related counsel	Court found Hogan Willig’s intrusion unnecessary and denied its crime‑fraud request as moot; probing was curtailed and subpoena to son‑in‑law’s counsel was quashed.
Hogan Willig’s motion for reconsideration of earlier § 522(o) ruling	N/A (Debtor opposes)	Hogan Willig sought reconsideration based on factual error and additional theories	Motion for reconsideration was denied as late filed.

In re Wrobel, 508 B.R. 271 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. 2014) (prior decision concerning § 522(o) homestead exemption ruling in the same case)
In re Hendricks, 250 B.R. 415 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2000) (refusal to treat speculative refinancing as sufficient to establish plan feasibility)
Kelleran v. Andrijevic, 825 F.2d 692 (2d Cir. 1987) (federal courts may not set aside final state‑court monetary judgments in bankruptcy)