Case law

Crews v. First Colony Life Insurance (In Re Barker)

168 B.R. 773 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 3, 1994

Clearly, Barker was concerned about an investment in stocks that was losing money, with losses in the amount of $1,400.00. … This type of cat-and-mouse pre-bankruptcy planning hinders and delays all creditors involved and is clearly prohibited by the Code. 3.

In Re Princeton Medical Management Inc.

248 B.R. 907 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · May 22, 2000

A judge’s ordinary efforts at courtroom administration — even a stern and short-tempered judge’s ordinary efforts at courtroom administration — remain immune. Id. at 555-56, 114 S.Ct. 1147 . (Emphasis in original). … Such rigid interpretations as this court has historically imposed have led to the entries of orders and the management of cases which clearly is not contemplated within the code.

Miller v. Burns (In Re Burns)

395 B.R. 756 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 8, 2008

Although 522(q) clearly incorporates the time threshold requiring a debtor to acquire a homestead interest within 1,215 days prior to filing bankruptcy before allowing a creditor to object, Miller somewhat inexplicably ignores … Section 503 (b)(1) or *769 under a qualified State tuition plan as defined in 26 U.S.C. Section 529 (b)(1).”

Jones v. Ryder Integrated Logistics, Inc. (In Re Jotan, Inc.)

264 B.R. 735 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 10, 2001

That *748 old balance clearly accumulated antecedent to the transfers made under the new agreement. … Not all consideration qualifies as "new value.” 7 .

Bruno v. Mona Lisa at Celebration, LLC (In re Mona Lisa at Celebration, LLC)

472 B.R. 582 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · May 16, 2012

Plaintiffs who signed the Updated Purchase Agreement clearly were aware of the terms in the agreement insofar as they signed the contract. … The first sentence clearly requires all changes to a purchase form to be submitted to the Division.

In Re Ez Pay Services, Inc.

380 B.R. 861 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 28, 2007

To qualify as an allowed administrative expense under § 503(b)(1), it is generally held that the claim must have arisen postpetition and resulted from actions taken by the trustee that created a benefit to the estate. … Clearly, Smoot provided substantial services to the Trustee.

Larimore v. Gulsby (In re Craft Plumbing Service)

53 B.R. 654 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 27, 1985

transfers were preferential transfers in that they were made by Craft Plumbing while it was insolvent, within one year prior to the filing of the Petition for Relief, and that since the recepients of the transfers were clearly … In addition, the transfer of title to the automobile was, obviously, an attempt by Gulsby to immunize the automobile from any claim of the Trustee of Craft Plumbing by placing the title in the name of his son.

Taylor v. Green Tree Financial Servicing Corp. (In Re Taylor)

260 B.R. 548 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Dec 11, 2000

Unconscionability of an FAA-qualified arbitration clause under Minnesota law i. … Therefore, the Court finds that the arbitration clause at issue is FAA-qualified and moves on to the unconscionability inquiry.

Petty v. Petty (In Re Petty)

333 B.R. 472 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 21, 2005

The award clearly is in the nature of a property settlement. B. Sections 523(a)(4) and 523(a)(6) Section 523(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code provides: 11 U.S.C. § 523 . … The Final Judgment establishes the amount of the debt, but does not contain any provision that would except the debt from discharge pursuant to § 523(a)(4) or (a)(6).

In Re Britt

211 B.R. 74 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 26, 1997

The legislative purpose of Chapter 13 was to achieve broad, extensive, and un *77 qualified discharge of debts for a working debtor. … Britt’s prior act of embezzlement is clearly against public policy, but Congress distinguishes Chapter 13 from Chapter 7.

In re Villamont-Oxford Associates Ltd. Partnership

230 B.R. 457 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 17, 1998

Judge Proctor acknowledged in Jacksonville Riverfront that other cases have held that the Reform Act did not overrule Phoenix Piccadilly, and that the debtor in the case before him did not qualify as a “single asset real … In this case, the first prong of the test set forth by the District Court is clearly satisfied.

NesSmith Electric Co. v. Kelley (In Re Kelley)

84 B.R. 225 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 23, 1988

joint venture agreement, wherein plaintiff agreed to lend its credit with Transamerica Insurance Company (“Surety”) to permit issuance of performance and payment bonds in favor of HRS for the project so that Abney could qualify … The elements necessary to create an express or “technical” trust include (1) sufficient words to create a trust, (2) a clearly defined trust res, and (3) an intent to create a trust relationship.

Woodard v. Stewart (In Re Stewart)

280 B.R. 268 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 1, 2001

No other direct evidence of the tax-qualified status of the plan was offered into evidence. … A default is clearly within the Court’s discretion. Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7055 (1998). Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4005 clearly places the initial burden of persuasion in an objection to discharge on the Plaintiff.

In Re Haning

252 B.R. 799 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 20, 2000

The burden is on Creditor to establish with preponderance of the evidence that Debtors in fact are not entitled to the exemptions claimed. FED. R. BANKR. P. 4003(c). … The listed Homestead is clearly Debtors’ primary residence and there is no evidence that Debtors lease any portion of that property.

Sunshine-Jr. Stores, Inc. v. Autopump Services Co. (In Re Sunshine-Jr. Stores, Inc.)

240 B.R. 788 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 2, 1999

Consequently, this Court finds Sunshine-Jr. failed to establish that Autopump’s breach caused any lost profits and is not entitled to these damages. … Aulopump contends that the materials and equipment in the Purchase Order qualify as "goods” because they were movable at the inception of the contract.

In Re Rivers

466 B.R. 558 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 12, 2012

As the function of the Means Test is to be a mechanical formula for establishing a presumptive bar to obtaining relief in a Chapter 7 case, it is fitting that the deductions should be bright line measurements. … The Means Test functions as an initial screen to weed out those Chapter 7 petitions that are most clearly abusive.

Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Lanier (In re Lanier)

589 B.R. 901 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 4, 2017

"In some cases, consumers were told that they had been 'approved' or that they 'qualified' for programs designed to keep them in their homes." (Doc. 1-3 at 29). … The determination of these issues was clearly a "critical and necessary" part of the Underlying Action.

In Re Venice-Oxford Associates Ltd. Partnership

236 B.R. 805 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 17, 1998

Judge Proctor acknowledged in Jacksonville Riverfront that other cases have held that the Reform Act did not overrule Phoenix Piccadilly, and that the debtor in the case before him did not qualify as a “single asset real … In this case, the first prong of the test set forth by the District Court is clearly satisfied.

In re Kardash

573 B.R. 257 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 21, 2017

Co., 547 U.S. 651, 655 , 126 S.Ct. 2105, 2109 , 165 L.Ed.2d 110 (2006) ("[P]referential treatment of a class of creditors is in order only when clearly authorized by Congress,”). … "Every claim granted priority status reduces the funds available to general unsecured creditors and may diminish the *264 recovery of other claimants qualifying for equal or lesser priorities.”

In Re Conrad

279 B.R. 320 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 7, 2002

The basis for the Motion to Dismiss, was two-fold: (1) that the “Debtor failed to qualify for Chapter 13” and (2) that the “case was not filed in good faith.” … It is now well established that Federal courts, including bankruptcy courts, have the inherent power to impose sanctions under appropriate circumstances. Chambers v.