Case law

Tara D. Wallace

United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 31, 2024

Accordingly, the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, and the related doctrines of sovereign immunity, and intergovernmental immunity, all serve to immunize the Federal Government from state laws that directly regulate … Further, the explicit statutory exclusion of “the courts of the United States” from the federal FOIA clearly shows that there has been no waiver of sovereign immunity in this area. U.S. v.

In Re Hansen

111 B.R. 647 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 7, 1990

Thusly, the aggregate of the above-referenced Plan sections clearly indicate that an active Plan participant such as the Debtor has a specific interest in the funds credited to his account. … It merely is a qualified deferred compensation program which was not intended to provide for the maintenance and support of its beneficiaries.

Sicherman v. Jelm (In Re Harvard Manufacturing Corp.)

97 B.R. 879 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 9, 1989

Accordingly, the requirement of § 547(b)(3) is established. … This Court has previously determined the propriety of such matters in view of the express waiver of sovereign immunity as provided under § 106(c) of the Bankruptcy Code.

In Re Fixel

286 B.R. 638 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 27, 2002

The Code enumerates properties which may be exempted, but it also allows states to establish separate exemption schemes. … question remains whether such IRA, which is not a part of an employee pension plan is preempted under ERISA. *644 PREEMPTION Under the Supremacy Clause, from which the preemption doctrine is derived, “ ‘any state law, however clearly

Swinney v. Academic Financial Services (In Re Swinney)

266 B.R. 800 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 19, 2001

In this regard, the Creditor referred to the evidence in this case which clearly shows that the Debtor has, in the past, made payments on her student loan obligations while at the same time maintaining relatively steady employment … In fact to the contrary, it was clearly shown that the Debtor’s mental difficulties do not rise to the level to enable the Debtor to qualify for Social Security Disability benefits.

Silagy v. Bank One, Akron, N.A. (In Re Collin)

182 B.R. 763 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · May 8, 1995

Therefore, the transfers were clearly preferential under 11 U.S.C. Section 547 (b) and are subject to avoidance by the Trustee. … In its decision the Donaghy court stressed that the distribution was essential for the support of the debtors and explained: From a factual standpoint the debtors have satisfactorily established that the lump sum pension

Campton v. United States Department of Education (In Re Campton)

405 B.R. 887 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · May 5, 2009

Stemming from this principle, this Court has consistently espoused the maxim ... that, (1) a debt- or’s distressed state of financial affairs must be the result of events which are clearly out of their control, and (2) the … As such, the Court is unable to find that the Debtor qualifies for an “undue hardship” discharge of his educational debt under § 523(a)(8).

Megan Marie Teter

United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 25, 2021

Waivers Of Sovereign Immunity, Including The Scope Of The Waiver, Must Be Strictly Construed Under well-established case law, waivers of sovereign immunity such … To do otherwise would expand the scope of Congress’ sovereign immunity waiver beyond what the statutory text clearly requires.

Matter of Mansfield & Tire Rubber Co., Inc.

73 B.R. 735 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 26, 1987

Clearly, the Treasurer does not qualify as a creditor with regard to post-petition taxes for the purpose of filing a proof of claim. … Lastly, the Treasurer asserts that interest accrued on post-petition taxes qualify as administrative expenses under Section 503(b)(1)(C) of the Bankruptcy Code.

In Re Lusiak

247 B.R. 699 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 9, 2000

Section 522(d)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code implements this policy by protecting a debt- or’s interest in their home, up to Sixteen Thousand One Hundred Fifty dollars ($16,150.00), to the extent that such a home qualifies as … In order to establish these criteria, bare allegations by the debtor of an intent to return to his property are insufficient.

In Re Lafferty

229 B.R. 707 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 27, 1998

Post-discharge lawsuits *713 are clearly prohibited. … National also clearly engaged in acts to collect a discharged debt.

In Re Marshalek

158 B.R. 704 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 13, 1993

Although an individual may qualify as a debtor, such person clearly is not a consumer debtor under § 101(8) unless the bulk of his or her debt is incurred in the course of domestic consumption. … In Krohn , the threshold issue of the existence of consumer debts was clearly established in that case. 5 Consequently, the principal disposi-tive issue in Krohn was whether the relief sought amounted to a substantial abuse

Irby v. Fashion Bug (In Re Irby)

337 B.R. 293 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 29, 2005

This does not mean that the reporting of a discharged debt is immune from the reach of the discharge injunction. Section § 524(a)(2) enjoins any “action” or “act” to recover a debt. … Thus, for example, if the act of reporting a debt was undertaken for the specific purpose of coercing the debtor into paying the debt, a violation of the discharge injunction could be established.

Berry v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Berry)

266 B.R. 359 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 4, 2000

For example, while an unexpected illness or accident would clearly constitute an event outside the debtor’s control, a lifestyle choice, although it may be admirable, would not. … For example, surely the Debtor would, with perhaps a little bit more training, be qualified to teach art at an elementary or high school within the United States.

Hansen v. White Farm Equipment Co. (In Re White Farm Equipment Co.)

23 B.R. 85 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 9, 1982

On August 13, 1981 8 a pre-trial conference was held at which the Court and the parties established a procedure for hearing the motion to dismiss. … In light of the unambiguously expressed power to terminate before the Court, the truth is quite clear that no immunity was accorded the Retirees and, hence, the ineluctable conclusion is that the power to terminate embraces

Matter of Mansfield Tire & Rubber Co.

80 B.R. 395 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 4, 1987

Under the terms of the plan an Assets Disposition Trust was established in which all assets of the estates were vested. The Co-Disposition Assets Trustees, Richard L. … Such a result is clearly untenable, and patently inequitable. Colin, supra at 810 (emphasis added).

Sams v. Avco Financial Services (In Re Sams)

9 B.R. 479 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 16, 1981

Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 provides; “The Congress shall have Power ... to establish . .. uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.” … Such an amount is clearly substantial. Congress enacted § 522(f) to allow a Pebtor to protect his exemptions and ensure the achievement of a “fresh start”.

In Re Asher

168 B.R. 614 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 24, 1994

Additionally, the person nominated by Trustee as Co-Counsel, while highly qualified, is not a disinterested person as required by the Bankruptcy Code. … If in the future the Trustee can establish adequate grounds for the appointment of a different Co-Counsel, then this Court may reconsider his Motion.

In Re Thompson

67 B.R. 1 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 7, 1984

The issue before the court is whether interest and penalties on an unpaid tax liability of a debtor in possession may qualify as a first priority administrative expense of the estate. … They have failed to supply the court with the statement required by the Treasury Regulations or any other evidence to establish reasonable cause.

In Re Unitcast, Inc.

214 B.R. 1010 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · May 7, 1997

Further, as the IRS has successfully argued in a recent Supreme Court case, this Court cannot categorically reorder the priority scheme established by Congress. United States v. … First, the plan’s accrual of the pension liability clearly preceded the May 4, 1993, petition date.