Case law

In Re Neto

215 B.R. 939 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 24, 1997

Clearly debtor has rights to those proceeds. … Finding the I.R.A. to be both a qualifying trust and restricted for the purposes of exclusion, the court established a list of five factors that must be met before a trust can be excluded from the estate. Id. at 614 .

Liscinski v. Mosley (In Re Mosley)

42 B.R. 181 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 14, 1984

The SOCAL Plans are qualified plans under section 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code ( 26 U.S.C. … In the following paragraph, however, the Court clearly indicated its awareness that, regardless of the terms of a trust instrument, creditors may execute against income from a trust in excess of $18 per week: “The public

Quality Botanical Ingredients, Inc. v. Triarco Industries, Inc. (In Re Quality Botanical Ingredients, Inc.)

249 B.R. 619 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 16, 2000

“A statement made in the course of judicial, administrative, or legislative proceedings is absolutely privileged and wholly immune from liability.” Id. … In order to establish a claim for a preference, the debtor must establish that the transfer was: 1. To or for the benefit of a creditor; 2.

Kemp v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (In Re Kemp)

440 B.R. 624 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 16, 2010

From the maker’s standpoint, therefore, it becomes essential to establish that the person who demands payment of a negotiable note, or to whom payment is made, is the duly qualified holder. … Consequently, plaintiffs here, as makers of the notes, may properly press defendant to establish its holder status. 853 F.2d at 168.

Williams v. EFG Tech/Rutgers (In Re Williams)

296 B.R. 128 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 25, 2003

Williams no longer qualified for disability benefits. On July 2, 2001, upon motion of Ms. … Williams has the burden of establishing each element of this test by a preponderance of the evidence. See, Faish, at 306; see also, Grogan v.

In Re Yuhas

186 B.R. 381 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 15, 1995

More germanely, under N.J.S.A. 25:2-l(b) a qualifying trust is defined as a trust created or qualified and maintained pursuant to federal law, including section 401, 403, 408, or 409 of the Internal Revenue Code. … . § 408 , it is a qualifying trust under the statute. It is beyond cavil that the IRA was established for the benefit of the Debtor. THE STATUTE CREATES A RESTRICTION ON TRANSFER A.

In Re Van Nostrand

183 B.R. 82 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 15, 1995

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to establish “uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.” The United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8 cl. 4. … Choice of Exemptions Pursuant to § 522, the debtor may select either the federal or the state exemptions and debtor has clearly chosen the federal exemptions.

In Re Velis

109 B.R. 64 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 24, 1989

In addition, the saving provision for a qualified pension arrangement found in 11 U.S.C. § 522 (d)(10)(E)(iii) seems meaningless if a qualified plan (which with the exception of IRAs and SEPs must include the anti-alienation … bring the debtor’s interest within the exception of 11 U.S.C. § 541 (c)(2) it appears that case law has developed that is clearly entwined with the question of enforceability.

Kish v. Verniero (In Re Kish)

204 B.R. 122 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 10, 1997

Paulsen, 886 F.2d 602, 606 (3d Cir.1989) (“That a motor vehicle surcharge constitutes a debt ... has been clearly established.”); Christensen v. … See In re Lugo, 94 B.R. 335, 342 (D.N.J.1989) (declining to restrict discharge exception where neither statutory language nor legislative history clearly expressed such intent).

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of the Estate of CCG 1355, Inc. v. CRST, Inc. (In Re CCG 1355, Inc.)

276 B.R. 377 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 16, 2002

His testimony also clearly established that the $6050 difference between the credit given by the defendant in its Ex. … Analysis of § 547(c)(2)(C) is not necessary, given CRST’s failure to establish its (B) course of dealing requirement.

Elsinore Shore Associates v. New Jersey Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control (In Re Elsinore Shore Associates)

66 B.R. 708 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 2, 1986

Ultimately, the Penn Terra court established that Pennsylvania’s enforcement of its environmental laws was clearly an exercise of the state’s police and regulatory power as provided in 11 U.S.C. § 362 (b)(4), and that consequently … The effect of an exception is not to make the action immune from injunction. The court has ample other powers to stay actions not covered by the automatic stay.

In Re Manfred

153 B.R. 430 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 28, 1993

Furthermore, in Rev.Rul. 82-1 the estate was created for the benefit of the decedent who qualified for the election prior to his passing away. … Thus, once the Trustee sold the residence, the sale was not only for the benefit of the Mehrs who qualify for the § 121 election, but also for the benefit of the creditors who do not qualify for a § 121 election.

In Re Mewborn

367 B.R. 529 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 29, 2006

The court further noted that the primary purpose of such payments is to provide income security to qualifying recipients. Id. … The court also determined that the receipt of unemployment compensation benefits establishes a “societal contract” of sorts between the state and the recipient. Id. at 455 .

Matter of Nelson

66 B.R. 231 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 27, 1986

The assent must, however, be clearly established and will not be inferred from doubtful or equivocal acts or language.’ 541 F.Supp. at 856 (quoting 5 S. Williston, Law of Contracts § 678, at 238 to 240 (3d ed. 1961)). … There was not a “clearly established” assent on the part of Central Mortgage to accept the debtor as the transferee of the property or as a mortgagor.

La Lomia v. United States General Services Administration (In Re Art Metal, U.S.A., Inc.)

109 B.R. 74 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 13, 1989

The foregoing quotes from the 88 Annual Report and the 1990 Budget reflect clearly that none of the money utilized by the PBGC comes from the government (except as investment income). … As the Court stated, “the United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit except where it has consented to be sued.” Id. at 1197 .

In re Norris

550 B.R. 271 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · May 20, 2016

The “restriction” was clearly enforceable under the Statute, thereby satisfying the fifth factor. … The combination of the language of section 408(e) in conjunction with IRS publications and regulations and the Jan-kelovits case cited by In re Thiem are sufficient to establish the tax exempt status of inherited IRAs.

Matter of Smithuysen

54 B.R. 661 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 22, 1985

Initially, it should be noted that reference is made to two rules which establish provisions for enlargement. … Rule 4004[b] clearly distinguishes between motions brought to enlarge the time period before, and after, it has tolled.

First Interstate Bank of California v. Great American Veal, Inc. (In Re Great American Veal, Inc.)

59 B.R. 27 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 18, 1985

This clearly was a conversion by GAV of Mid-West’s assets. … Sec. 9-114, it fails to qualify as an exemption.

In Re Adams

106 B.R. 811 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 20, 1989

The DMV is clearly within the scope of this statutory definition. … The Penn Terra court established that the enforcement of Pennsylvania’s environmental laws was clearly an exercise of the state’s police and regulatory power as provided in 11 U.S.C. § 362 (b)(4).

In Re Congoleum Corp.

362 B.R. 167 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 26, 2007

Debtors argue that its contributions clearly satisfy the “fair and equitable” standard, or at a minimum raise questions for the finder of facts. … None of those assertions have been established.