Case law

Humes v. LVNV Funding, L.L.C. (In re Humes)

496 B.R. 557 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jul 17, 2013

Martin qualified her answer by saying she would “need to look at the ledger card to make sure that [the charge] actually happened.” Transcript of Record at 193. … The fact that Hosto is also a law firm does not render it immune from liability under the FDCPA.

In Re Hollis and Co.

86 B.R. 152 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · Apr 25, 1988

Clearly, whatever I decide can be supported by case law. The trick is to do justice." In re Furimsky, 40 B.R. 350, 854 (Bkrptcy.D.Ariz.1984). … Charles Darwin Davidson is the duly appointed acting and qualified Bankruptcy Trustee in this Chapter 11 proceeding. 2. Defendant is a national banking association based in Boston, Massachusetts. 3.

Davidson v. Bank of New England, N.A. (In re Hollis)

86 B.R. 152 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · Apr 25, 1988

Clearly, whatever I decide can be supported by case law. The trick is to do justice.” In re Furimsky, 40 B.R. 350, 354 (Bkrptcy.D.Ariz.1984). … Charles Darwin Davidson is the duly appointed acting and qualified Bankruptcy Trustee in this Chapter 11 proceeding. 2. Defendant is a national banking association based in Boston, Massachusetts. 3.

Schieffler v. Pulaski Bank & Trust Co. (In Re Molitor)

183 B.R. 547 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 15, 1995

This establishes that the scope of this stay is not limited to proceedings for a monetary recovery against the debtor. … The word revocable is scratched out of the caption, however, the provisions of paragraph 2.2 of the trust clearly made the trust revocable during Josephine S. Molitor’s lifetime. 2 .

Rice v. Bennett (In Re Supermarket Investors, Inc.)

441 B.R. 333 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · Dec 14, 2010

Clearly, the trustee enjoyed these benefits both in the storage and sale contexts. … Rice arrived at this percentage by dividing $18,290 by $118,193.90 to establish Bennett’s percentage of the total sales proceeds. 6 .

U.S. Tr. v. Beard (In re Beard)

595 B.R. 274 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · Dec 4, 2018

She established Amy Garrison, M.D., PLLC [the PLLC] in 2011 and completed her residency in family medicine in June 2012. … In fact, the loan application-signed by both Buch and the debtor-clearly indicated that title to the property was to be held by only Buch.

In Re Hoffinger Industries, Inc.

307 B.R. 112 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 14, 2004

Clearly, adjustments to this component will have to be made with either a firm conclusion date or an adequate and acceptable vehicle for amendment. … As stated above, this is clearly not a mass tort case.

Ramsay v. Jones (In Re Jones)

175 B.R. 994 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 2, 1994

The evidence clearly established that Jones personally exercised control over the account. … Omissions from the schedules qualify as a false oath if they are made knowingly and with fraudulent intent. Ray v. Graham (In re Graham), 111 B.R. 801, 806 (Bankr.E.D.Ark.1990).

Drennan v. Drennan (In Re Drennan)

161 B.R. 661 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · Nov 9, 1993

Paragraph (5) of subsection (a) establishes the principle that alimony is nondischargeable. Subparagraph (B) states that a debt merely designated as support is dischargeable unless it actually is support. … She clearly could not afford, at the time of the divorce, to find an alternate residence without those funds. Mrs. Drennan told the debtor at the time of the divorce she needed those funds to live.

Meeks v. Harrah's Tunica Corp. (In Re Armstrong)

231 B.R. 723 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · Feb 5, 1999

While this clearly militates in favor of a finding that the proof is not or cannot be met, the Court will examine the bit of proof offered. … Hotchkiss establishes the rule subsequently codified by 11 U.S.C. § 547 (c)(1). 5 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 547.04[l][a] (15th rev. ed.) 4 .

Rice v. First Arkansas Valley Bank (In Re May)

310 B.R. 405 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 10, 2004

Whether an individual qualifies as a bona fide purchaser is a question of fact. See Smith v. Parker, 67 Ark.App. 221, 226 , 998 S.W.2d 1, 4 (1999) (citation omitted). … Waller, 15 Ark.App. 336, 339 , 693 S.W.2d 61, 63 (1985) (“The general rule, as well as the established rule in this state, seems to be well settled that in order for one to establish by parol either a resulting or constructive

Todd Armstrong

United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 18, 2024

Keeton, in the nature of support, established or subject to establishment by the Decree or other court order, and not assigned to a nongovernmental entity. See 11 U.S.C. § 101(14A)(A)– (D). … established or subject to establishment by the Decree or other court order. There is no evidence linking this fee to the fees awarded by the state court in the Divorce Action.

National Hydro-Vac Industrial Services, L.L.C. v. Federal Signal Corp. (In Re National Hydro-Vac Industrial Services, L.L.C.)

314 B.R. 753 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 15, 2004

The two units sold to Vac-Tech qualify as “goods” under the statute. … CONVERSION OF THIRD UNIT However, the facts regarding the third unit sold to Ace clearly support the conclusion that Guzzler committed the tort of conversion.

May v. Midland Funding, LLC (In re May)

591 B.R. 712 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · Oct 3, 2018

Clearly stated, the Purchase Agreement contemplates the transfer of both the account itself and the associated receivable, not just the receivable. … Further, account servicing is clearly delineated between the parties pre- and post-transfer, in the Purchase Agreement.

Moffitt v. America's Servicing Co. (In Re Moffitt)

408 B.R. 249 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 22, 2009

Tex. 2007] (“[A] bankruptcy court is well within its authority if it exercises its equitable powers under § 105(a) to achieve a result the Code clearly requires.”) (citing Perkins Coie v. … Clearly, if there are legitimate charges which should have survived the plaintiffs’ Chapter 13 discharge, there will be no violation of the § 524(a)(2) discharge injunction.

Hamilton v. Hamilton (In Re Hamilton)

390 B.R. 618 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jun 16, 2008

Omissions from the schedules qualify as a false oath if they are made knowingly and with fraudulent intent. In re Sears, 246 B.R. at 347 (citing Mertz v. … The circuit court case was concluded by some type of informal probation not clearly shown by the record. The Debtor testi *628 fied that he neither pleaded guilty nor was adjudicated guilty.

In Re Egbert

384 B.R. 818 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · Apr 10, 2008

However, even court-ordered child support is not automatically excluded because the debtor must also establish to the bankruptcy court’s own satisfaction that the expenditure of that support is reasonably necessary for the … While § 1325(b)(2) clearly states that the child support and other payments for a dependent child will be exempted from inclusion in current monthly income only if those payments are made in accordance with nonbank-ruptcy

In Re Panther Mountain Land Development, LLC

438 B.R. 169 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · Oct 22, 2010

Odom both qualified their statements, attributing part of the decline to a reduction in Ms. Odom’s availability. Ms. … The Court limited its review to the purpose of accounting for the "time value of money” as this purpose was clearly explained in the appraisal report (Creditor Exhibit 16, p. 37). 22 .Although a detailed analysis of this

In Re Bryant

439 B.R. 724 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · Oct 8, 2010

the Bank would charge the Debtors for a similar loan, and therefore, could not say what interest rate the Bank would charge the Debtors for a similar loan today; however, he testified that he believed they would probably qualify … Such a substitute clearly must both compensate for present value and insure the safety of the principal. Id. at 1339 (quoting Mariner and adding emphasis).

Bank of England v. Rice (In re Webb)

520 B.R. 748 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · Oct 23, 2014

See In re Rainbow Music, Inc., 154 B.R. 559, 561 (Bankr.N.D.Cal.1993) (“This Court concludes that, given the rule established for preferential transfers in [Barnhill v. … The nature of this check is clearly in dispute as is discussed herein. .