Case law

Nelson v. Miller (In Re Miller)

268 B.R. 826 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 16, 2001

Why shouldn’t this be enough to qualify the debtor’s spouse as a creditor holding a contingent claim? … Clearly, neither of these tasks can be accomplished until the state court has actually entered its order.

In Re Vale

110 B.R. 396 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 23, 1989

Any person whose views are to the contrary has the burden of establishing that Congress was in error.) … The Court held that guns, bows and arrows, cameras, golf clubs, and a bicycle qualified as “household goods”. In Oswald v.

Joint Apprenticeship Comm. of United Ass'n Local Union No 307 v. Rezendes (In Re Rezendes)

318 B.R. 436 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 5, 2004

Clearly, the Plaintiffs program was intended not as an educational benefit to the Debtor, but rather it was intended to benefit the Plaintiff by assuring that it had a qualified nursing staff on a relatively long-term basis … The existence of the above-designated third class of apprenticeship participants quite clearly establishes that the purpose of the promissory note/agreement used by JATC is not to obtain repayment at a future date, but rather

In Re Curry Printers, Inc.

135 B.R. 564 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 4, 1991

Ordinarily this will be the contractual rental pro rata temporis, unless it is shown that the contractual rental itself is clearly unreasonable. … In any event, the analysis should only center around the reasonable rental value of the property as established either by the lease rate or by the rate established by the rebutting evidence presented by a party.

In Re Arcella-Coffman

318 B.R. 463 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 8, 2004

Based upon the Court’s view of applicable law, and the record in this case, the debtor does not qualify for Chapter 13 relief; no further submissions from the parties are necessary. … Clearly, focusing solely on the damage element of a monetary cause of action begs the question, and the definition, of “debt”, both as used in § 101(12) and in § 109(e).

Wiseman v. Wiseman (In Re Wiseman)

351 B.R. 651 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 29, 2006

Noeldner opined that it would not qualify for additional lending and it could not afford to pay $30,000 a year for a new employee or for *657 an individual debt to Heidi. … He also stated that James could not personally afford to pay $30,000 a year and would not qualify for a loan. He stated that James reaffirmed his debt to TCU.

In Re Fink

366 B.R. 870 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 15, 2007

Nonetheless, it has never established any guidelines that would assist the court in determining what constitutes an amendable informal proof of claim. In re Harper, 138 B.R. 229, 243 (Bankr.N.D.Ind.1991). … They do not qualify as an informal proof of claim. Even if the court takes a somewhat broader approach to Ms. Fink’s filings they still fail to qualify as an informal claim. Ms.

Bank Calumet v. Whiters (In Re Whiters)

337 B.R. 326 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 2, 2006

Counterbalancing the portions the Kawaauhaus emphasize, the Tinker Court repeatedly observed that the tort in question qualified in the common law as trespassory. … He discussed possible financing with Bank Calumet and was advised that he qualified for a refinancing loan on the vehicle.

In Re Tbr USA, Inc.

429 B.R. 599 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 7, 2010

Regardless, § 702(a)(1) clearly requires that, in order to vote, the creditor must have an allowable claim. … Thus, she does not qualify under § 702(a)(2). In re Williams, 277 B.R. at 118 .

Canganelli v. Lake County Indiana Department of Public Welfare (In Re Canganelli)

132 B.R. 369 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 3, 1991

Clearly the Court is not the trustee or U.S. Trustee, nor is it a “creditor” as defined by § 101(9). The Court may qualify as having the same rights as a creditor, trustee or U.S. … to change the meaning is clearly and indubitably manifested.

Logal v. Education Credit Management Corp. (In Re Logal)

381 B.R. 706 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 25, 2007

The foregoing parameters established by the Court were not followed. … The record is devoid of evidence that Logal made any effort whatsoever to establish her inability to pay the State Commission.

Balvich v. Balvich (In Re Balvich)

135 B.R. 327 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · May 22, 1991

Thus, “a debt could be in the ‘nature of support' under § 523(a)(5) even though it would not legally qualify as alimony or support under state law.” Yeates, 807 F.2d at 878 . … The parties clearly contemplated the possibility that Mrs. Balvich might choose to live elsewhere and sell the marital residence. She has, in fact, done so and has since re-married.

Manning v. Watkins (In re Watkins)

474 B.R. 625 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 6, 2012

Finally, the evidence clearly establishes that Housing Resource Center, Inc. owed Allen Watkins a debt on the date of the filing of the petition, arising from his loans made to that entity throughout the operation of his … These cases, however, appear to involve the law of states in which one co-tenant’s interest in entirety property is not immune from levy by a creditor of one spouse alone.

Shaver Motors, Inc. v. Mills (In Re Mills)

111 B.R. 186 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 29, 1988

Discharge clearly cannot be denied based on § 523(a)(4). There was no showing of an express or technical trust established by agreement or statute prior to the wrongful acts complained of. See, Miller et. al. v. … Grant, 481 F.2d 664 (4th Cir.1973) clearly is applicable here.

Stubbs v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. (In Re Stubbs)

330 B.R. 717 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 13, 2005

Lynch, 407 N.E.2d 280, 286 , supra, and quoted by this Court in In re Herr, supra: Constructive notice is a legal inference from established facts. … R.Bankr.P. 9017], and thus that evidentiary foundations must be established for documents, that hearsay doesn’t count, and that experts be qualified as experts on a cold record — among other nuances of establishing the admissibility

Leslie v. Hart (In Re Hart)

130 B.R. 817 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 3, 1991

To establish that a debt is nondis-chargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(4), a creditor must establish that: 1) an express trust existed, 2) the debt was caused by fraud or defalcation, and 3) the debtor acted as a fiduciary … The stipulations in the consent judgment clearly establish that the debt is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(4). Paragraph 3 of the Agreed Judgment Order indicates that Ms. Klingman and Mr.

Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Blackburn (In Re Blackburn)

68 B.R. 870 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 12, 1987

Plaintiff argued that-this subsection expressly refers to § 523(a)(2)(A), which it had clearly raised in the complaint. … Certain goods may not qualify as necessities and still not be luxuries. Luxury in itself implies extravagance, superfluousness, self-indulgence; going beyond or overflowing an implicit, indeterminate level of comfort.

Manning v. Wallace (In Re First Financial Associates, Inc.)

371 B.R. 877 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 20, 2007

Clearly, Darrell intended that his fiancé receive the money instead of the creditors of the Debtor. … Wallace under Kemper Policy 646; the Court has determined that the death benefit is immune from challenge by the Trustee.

Diaz v. Diaz (In Re Diaz)

120 B.R. 967 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 26, 1989

Robinson, 259 Ind. 16 , 284 N.E.2d 794 (1972), abolished the common law doctrine of interspousal immunity in tort actions. … The district court judgment here clearly is a debt for money under the Bankruptcy Code.

Matter of Hunt's Health Care, Inc.

161 B.R. 971 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 28, 1993

Once the reasonable hourly rate and the number of reasonable hours have been established and the resulting lodestar calculated, the Supreme Court has “established a ‘strong presumption’ that the lodestar represents the ‘reasonable … As a result, a perceived stigma arose that only less qualified counsel in the bankruptcy bar worked for debtors due to the reduced compensation.