Case law

MPC Cash-Way Lumber Co. v. Collins (In Re Collins)

266 B.R. 123 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 25, 2000

Accordingly, for purposes of this case, as long as the Defendant was subject to Michigan’s Building Trust Fund Act, the *127 Defendant will qualify as a fiduciary for purposes of § 523(a)(4). … Such omissions, in this Court’s judgment, clearly constitute a failure to properly account for funds held in trust.

Courtney v. Traut (In Re Traut)

282 B.R. 863 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 5, 2002

Finally, it is observed that other courts, when addressed with a similar provision, have held that such an obligation qualifies as a nondis-chargeable obligation under § 523(a)(5). See Reiff v. … Once this burden is met, however, the burden then shifts to the debtor to establish that either of the above-stated defenses set forth in the statute are applicable. See, e.g., Fellner v.

Neuger v. United States (In Re Tenna Corp.)

43 B.R. 140 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 14, 1984

The government’s claim for taxes in this proceeding qualifies for priority status under Section 507(a)(6). There are other government claims entitled to like priority. … The payment in question, therefore, clearly enabled the *143 government to receive more than it would receive in the distribution of this estate.

In Re Dilley

125 B.R. 189 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 11, 1991

But even if the Debtor’s efforts to extend his fourteen month enjoyment of bankruptcy protections free of Court control without evidence of feasibility or good faith were immune from constraint under section 349(a), it appears … Based on these considerations the Court has decided to qualify Debtor’s dismissal of his case appropriately. Although section 349(a) appears to assume a res judicata effect, see 2 L.

Davis v. Kindrick (In Re Kindrick)

213 B.R. 504 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 18, 1997

Under the plain reading of the statute, the phrase “while acting in a fiduciary capacity” clearly qualifies the words “fraud or defalcation,” and not “embezzlement” or “larceny,” so that debts resulting from embezzlement … The purchase of the mobile home was clearly done to benefit both parties.

In re Allied Consol. Indus., Inc.

602 B.R. 645 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 22, 2019

Shibble led him to believe that most of AED/Gator's equipment in question either clearly qualified as exempt or was clearly taxable. [ Id. , p. 66]. Upon being asked by the court, Mr. … Wash testified that equipment used to change the form of, or prepare scrap, would qualify as exempt, whereas "just cutting it up or prepping it to be shipped off" would not qualify. [ Id. ]. Ms.

In re Firstenergy Solutions Corp.

591 B.R. 688 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 18, 2018

The 2018 FENOC KERP establishes three tiers of bonuses for the plan participants. … The Debtors did not provide evidence of every job function, the targets established by management, the basis for evaluating them, and the current number of employees qualified for each *703 function.

Derryberry v. Peoples Banking Co. (In Re Hartley)

55 B.R. 770 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 15, 1985

Claiming that the payment qualifies as a preference under § 547(b), the trustee now seeks its recovery. The trustee to prevail in a preference action must establish all elements set forth in Section 547(b). G.E. … The Court held that if the shares had value it was clearly a preference but there was no evidence in the record which established value and therefore the case was remanded to determine that question.

Bubp v. Romer (In Re Romer)

254 B.R. 207 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 11, 2000

Thus, these parties simply do not qualify as dependants for purposes of § 523(a)(15)(A). … Under § 523(a)(15)(B), the income of the creditor’s spouse is clearly relevant in any analysis comparing the parties’ respective standards of living.

Wasserman v. Household Realty Corp. (In Re Barkley)

263 B.R. 553 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 21, 2001

Further, the Trustee is correct in arguing that Household does not qualify as a good faith transferee. … Thus, even if the § 550 defenses were available to Household, it would not qualify for the defenses asserted under § 550(e). III.

Matthews v. Sallie Mae Servicing (In Re Matthews)

324 B.R. 319 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 14, 2004

Carried a step further then, implicit in this requirement is the concept that the debt- or’s distressed state of financial affairs be the result of events which are clearly out of their control; that is, the debtor must establish … Hence, since each prong of the Brunner Test must be met, the Debtor does not qualify for an undue hardship discharge of her student loan debt under 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(8).

Crump v. U.S.A. (In re Crump)

282 B.R. 859 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 17, 2002

however, the Court has with the Debtor’s position is that even if the facts of this case could be distinguished from the Sixth Cir- *862 euit’s decision in In re Hindenlang, the circumstances present in In re Crawley are clearly … On the other hand, in a situation such as this, where a taxpayer seeks to establish, in the absence of a postmark, that they actually mailed a tax document to the IRS, the protections of § 7502 are not applicable.

Miller v. U.S. Dept. of Education (In Re Miller)

254 B.R. 200 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 1, 2000

In fact, many facts presented in this case clearly point to the Debtor’s financial situation markedly improving in the future. … Accordingly, as each prong of the Brunner Test must be met, 2 the Debtor does not qualify for an undue hardship discharge of her student loan debt under 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(8).

Baker v. Smith (In Re Smith)

270 B.R. 696 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 18, 2001

Under the plain reading of the statute, the phrase “while acting in a fiduciary capacity” clearly qualifies the phrase “fraud or defalcation,” and not “embezzlement” or “larceny,” so that debts resulting from embezzlement … The Sixth Circuit also established that the attorney-client relationship, with *701 out more, is insufficient to establish- the necessary fiduciary relationship for defalcation under § 523(a)(4). R.E. America, Inc. v.

Hrynciw v. Crump (In Re Crump)

321 B.R. 879 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 3, 2004

From an evidentiary standpoint, O.R.C. § 4511.19 prescribes two methods by which intoxication may be established. … The difficulty here, however, is not whether the Defendant exhibited a lack of good driving judgment — clearly he did, as shown by his failure to stop at a clearly marked intersection — or whether the Defendant had previously

Derrick C. White-Childs

United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 6, 2026

Judicial Immunity “It is well-established that judges enjoy judicial immunity from suits arising out of the performance of their judicial functions.” Brookings v. … Rather, “a judge acts in the clear absence of all jurisdiction ‘only when the matter upon which he acts is clearly outside the subject matter of the court over which he presides.’”

In re Sturm

483 B.R. 312 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 21, 2012

According to Debtor, these statements show that for her husband, “the overwhelming majority of purchases are clearly for his personal use and not toward any household expense.” (Doc. 76, Main Doc. at pg. 2). … In its Decision, the District Court made it clear: “the Trustee bears the burden of establishing that Mr.

Hanes v. Vital Products Co. (In Re Vital Products Co.)

210 B.R. 109 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · May 13, 1997

. § 1-201(37), as codified in Ohio, a transaction qualifies as a security interest and falls within the scope of article 9 where the obligation to pay a stream of rent payments extends for the entire term of the lease and … nominal consideration. 6 The above-quoted language from the Lease clearly shows that the Debtor was provided an opportunity to become owner of the equipment at the end of the lease period by simply making a single payment

Barciz v. Farmers Citizens Bank (In Re Barciz)

123 B.R. 771 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 29, 1990

A later case citing Brown further establishes this point. … The Debtor’s argument is clearly not on point for the purposes of this decision.

In Re Amstutz

427 B.R. 636 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 15, 2010

Under the Bankruptcy Code, Charles Proby qualifies as a “bankruptcy petition preparer.” … Proby’s fees must also be considered within the context that some of those services he provided to the Debtor clearly entailed the unauthorized practice of law.