Case law

In re Alsofari

588 B.R. 58 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · Dec 14, 2017

The facts in the Haugen case, however, clearly demonstrate a level of participation that far exceeds that by Mr. Ahmed. … pay the claim in his plan, were sufficient to establish an informal proof of claim.

McGraw v. Collier (In re Collier)

497 B.R. 877 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 3, 2013

However, the evidence clearly shows that the LLC knew its own net worth and also knew that it did not qualify as an Accredited Investor. … Clearly, the aim was to mislead the Debtor and his level of employees as long as possible. Apparently, the Debtor himself was deceived.

Schieffler v. Pryor (In re Baldwin)

184 B.R. 558 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · Apr 12, 1995

Said actions by the trustee and Baldwin were clearly taken only for the purpose of attempting to extract additional monies from the defendants without legal basis or justification. … to determine the issue of immunity. .

In Re Stevens

177 B.R. 619 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 24, 1995

(The nonmov-ant may not rely on the allegations or denials in its pleadings to establish a genuine issue of fact, but must come forward with an affirmative showing of evidence). … It is clearly the better course for debtors to list all property in which they have an interest, even though it may not be property of the estate.

Seay v. United States (In re Seay)

369 B.R. 423 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 16, 2007

Finally, no litigation or administrative costs may be awarded under § 7430 for those fees and costs incurred before a “qualified offer” is made (this limitation is discussed more thoroughly herein) if the United States establishes … The affidavits alone do not establish that there is a shortage of qualified tax attorneys to handle the tax issues, or a shortage of qualified bankruptcy attorneys to handle the bankruptcy issues; the affidavits do show that

In Re Johnson

460 B.R. 234 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · Sep 28, 2011

Investments, Inc., 370 Ark. 220 , 258 S.W.3d 374 (2007), establishes authority for its position. … In 1864, Congress placed into law an act that established a national banking system.

Dowden v. Teachers Insurance & Annuity Ass'n (In Re Baxter)

135 B.R. 353 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · Jan 15, 1992

The CREF Contract provides that “Benefits under this certificate are protected by the following clause contained in the statute of the State of New York establishing CREF: No money or other benefit provided or rendered by … This Court is persuaded by those courts which reach the conclusion that a tax-qualified ERISA pension or profit sharing plan is exempt from the bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541 (c)(2). See Anderson v.

Davidson v. United States of America Internal Revenue Service (In Re Summa T Corp.)

73 B.R. 388 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · Apr 27, 1987

In view of this faulty evidence, the trustee clearly has failed to establish any mistake, and the adjustment for $79,180 should be sustained.” … “Clearly the trustee’s proof in support of these disputed interest deductions is negligible.

In Re Clark

138 B.R. 579 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · Dec 17, 1991

Exhibit three does state clearly that the 1984 tax return was received in “Secondary Sort” on May 23, 1990. … The debtors have failed to establish any proof of a postmark.

Dowden v. Cross County Bank (In re Brittenum & Associates, Inc.)

97 B.R. 503 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 28, 1987

In order to qualify the funds as special accounts or funds held in trust, the bank must be made aware that the deposit is for a special purpose. United States v. … The Bank was clearly on notice of the nature of CD 9545 and savings account 01-494852-10.

Solomon v. Jarrett (In Re Jarrett)

303 B.R. 816 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · Dec 18, 2003

Jarrett was found by the Circuit Court to be liable to the plaintiffs under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act, which does not require both willful and malicious conduct in order to establish a violation of the plaintiffs’ civil … However, this section is clearly inapplicable to the facts as alleged.

Ray v. Graham (In Re Graham)

111 B.R. 801 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 6, 1990

Neither the origin of these documents nor the existence of records for the alleged missing years was ever clearly established. … Hence, an omission from the schedules may qualify as a false oath. Bankruptcy courts, however, have not imposed strict liability under section 727(a)(4) for omissions from schedules.

In Re Seay

369 B.R. 423 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 16, 2007

Finally, no litigation or administrative costs may be awarded under § 7430 for those fees and costs incurred before a "qualified offer" is made (this limitation is discussed more thoroughly herein) if the United States establishes … The affidavits alone do not establish that there is a shortage of qualified tax attorneys to handle the tax issues, or a shortage of qualified bankruptcy attorneys to handle the bankruptcy issues; the affidavits do show that

Mosley v. Sims (In Re Sims)

148 B.R. 553 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · Dec 22, 1992

. *556 Omissions from the schedules may qualify as false oath if they are made knowingly and with fraudulent intent. In re Graham, 111 B.R. 801 at 806 (Bankr.E.D.Ark. 1990). … The schedules clearly call for the debtors to disclose their transactions and accurately list property, income, and expenses.

In Re Dedmon

366 B.R. 1 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 15, 2007

Although clearly interrelated, each forms an independent basis for her removal. III. … Clearly, Goldman’s responses contradict her earlier sworn testimony.

In re Oldner

191 B.R. 146 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 18, 1995

The rule is well-established in Arkansas that homestead laws are remedial and should be liberally construed to effectuate the purpose for which they are intended. Smith v. Flash T.V. … All these characteristics taken together clearly support a finding that the debtor’s property is urban in nature. Therefore, the trustee’s objection to the claim of a rural homestead is sustained.

Johnson v. Baldridge (In Re Baldridge)

256 B.R. 284 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · Nov 30, 2000

The uncle established the price of $80,000 for the property, which he believed had a value of $157,000, and executed and delivered a deed in favor of Baldridge 1 who had prepared the deed for his uncle. … False statements as well as omissions from the schedules may qualify as false oaths if they are made knowingly and with fraudulent intent. Id. at *8 .

EBCO Construction Group, LLC v. Garretson (In Re Garretson)

377 B.R. 214 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · Oct 23, 2007

Because summary judgment was entered after Gar-retson failed to defend the lawsuit, the Missouri State Court judgment was not entered on the merits of the case and does not qualify for collateral estoppel. … Clearly, the issues necessary to prevail on a § 523(a)(4) claim (even if it were properly pled) were not at issue in the Missouri State Court ease, and therefore, collateral estoppel does not apply and summary judgment is

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

403 B.R. 775 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · Mar 20, 2009

In February 2007, the Prices sent a Qualified Written Request (“QWR”) to ASC. … IMBS, Inc., 368 F.3d 726, 730 (7th Cir.2004), that there is no "irreconcilable conflict between the statutes or a clearly expressed legislative decision that one replace the other.”

Wildlife Farms II, LLC v. Robinson (In Re Robinson)

368 B.R. 818 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · May 17, 2007

Omissions from the schedules qualify as a false oath if they are made knowingly and with fraudulent intent. Cepelak v. Sears (In re Sears), 246 B.R. 341, 347 (8th Cir. BAP 2000)(citing Mertz v. … Given the number of false statements and omissions by both Debtors and the magnitude of the RICO claim that the Debtors were asserting but omitted from the schedules, the evidence clearly establishes by the required preponderance