Case law

Stickel v. Finkelstein (In Re Huffy Corp.)

358 B.R. 724 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 21, 2006

The causes of action clearly arise from White’s relationship with Huffy and the forum state. And, finally, the exercise of jurisdiction in this instance is patently reasonable. … Furthermore, the APA clearly shows that Osgoode was not a purchaser and was only the subject of a single paragraph pertaining to a Supplier Agreement.

Society Bank, N.A. v. Sinder (In Re Sinder)

102 B.R. 978 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 28, 1989

All “reasonable time” contemplated by the provisions of Rule 17, to the extent such time provisions would be applicable in this proceeding, has long since expired and the real party in interest, the appointed qualified and … It is clearly in the interest of both parties to arrange for the prompt scheduling and completion of the proposed Rule 2001/ examination.

Perkins v. United States (In Re Perkins)

216 B.R. 220 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 10, 1997

The Bankruptcy Code clearly provides the following exceptions to discharge: (a) A discharge under section 727 ... of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt— (1) for a tax or a customs duty— (A) of … This section, together with 26 U.S.C. § 7422 (a), constitutes a waiver by the United States of its sovereign immunity with respect to refund suits by taxpayers to recover internal revenue taxes alleged to have been erroneously

In Re Henry

328 B.R. 529 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 28, 2004

AmeriCredit did not offer expert testimony to establish a replacement value for the Grand Am. … While these types of reports clearly constitute hearsay, they are nevertheless admissible because they fit within the market-report exception.

In Re Mohr

425 B.R. 457 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 15, 2010

The reduced amount must pertain if the Debtors are to qualify as having “primarily consumer debts” thereby triggering the abuse provisions of § 707(b) and possible conversion or dismissal of their bankruptcy case. … See also In re Weeks, 306 B.R. 587, 590 (Bankr.E.D.Mich.2004) (interpreting Zick to limit bad faith dismissals to “egregious cases where the debtors motives are clearly inconsistent with the established purpose of the Bankruptcy

Butz v. Society National Bank of the Miami Valley (In re Clark)

30 B.R. 182 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · May 9, 1983

The proposed Bankruptcy Rules take effect 1 August 1983 and continue the established procedure wherein the bankruptcy courts are the sole trial forum for all bankruptcy related matters. … proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 1471 (b) similarly relieves this Court of the duty to inquire into jurisdiction beyond the determination that a matter falls within the jurisdictional grant of 28 U.S.C. § 1471 (b), and further immunizes

Lawrence Bank v. Brent (In re Brent)

539 B.R. 788 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 30, 2015

In other words, any communication addressing the status of a single asset or liability qualifies. … The Bank did not show that it had an established transactional history with Dr.

Foreman Industries, Inc. v. Broadway Sand & Gravel (In Re Foreman Industries, Inc.)

59 B.R. 145 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 24, 1986

The plaintiff established a preferential transfer under 11 U.S.C. § 547 (b) in the amount of $845.87; and 6. The defendant did not establish an exception under 11 U.S.C. § 547 (c)(1) or (c)(2). I. … If Congress had intended to make a basic change in the preference concept, it is not unreasonable to assume that such an intention would have been clearly and unambiguously expressed (footnote omitted).

In Re Montgomery Court Apartments of Ingham County, Ltd.

141 B.R. 324 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · May 26, 1992

Williams’s testimony clearly supports a finding that the accuracy of Montgomery Court’s financial records has improved dramatically. … Clearly, the plan as proposed substantially and negatively modifies the claimant's rights in a manner prohibited by § 1322(b)(2). IV.

National City Bank v. Manning (In Re Manning)

280 B.R. 171 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 28, 2002

But, elsewhere in the Code, where Congress intended to define the term “cash” broadly (as including more than currency), that intention is clearly expressed. … Alone, financial inability to repay does not establish fraudulent intent.”).

Hardesty v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (In re Boothe)

510 B.R. 154 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 27, 2013

Plaintiff is the duly qualified and acting case Trustee in Debtors’ bankruptcy case. … In determining a trustee’s rights under § 544(a)(3), it is well established that state law determines the extent of the trustee’s rights in the property. Simon v.

In Re Smoak

461 B.R. 510 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 28, 2011

Inc., 853 F.2d 163 , 166 (3rd Cir.1988) (“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 … The language of the Memorandum in Support and the amortization schedule attached as Exhibit A to the motion clearly set forth that the claim would be $76,000, not as filed in the amount of $96,608.65, and amortized over a

Shafer v. Wintrow (In Re Wintrow)

57 B.R. 695 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 12, 1986

I, § 8, cl. 4 to establish “uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.” … here]] “In the legislative history accompanying the Bankruptcy Act of 1978, Congress made it unmistakeable that only deliberate and intentional acts should be considered ‘willful,’ and that mere reckless disregard did not qualify

In Re Richardson

216 B.R. 206 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 30, 1997

As the result, no deposit procedure was established in order to receive the electronic transfer of the funds from the IRS and for the credit union set off to occur. … After performing a thorough review of all the policy considerations, Judge Bodoh found that the debtor’s earned income credit was property of the estate, did not qualify under Ohio’s statutory exemptions and must be paid

Speco Corp. v. Canton Drop Forge, Inc. (In Re Speco Corp.)

218 B.R. 390 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 17, 1998

When, on the other hand, a debtor makes a payment which otherwise qualifies for the ordinary course of business exception, the debtor’s subjective intent will not operate to negate the otherwise appropriate finding of the … Unlike the previous payments, the timing and manner in which the payments were made are not clearly ordinary. In addition, the question as to the manner of delivery appears to be in genuine dispute.

Noland v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (In Re Williams)

395 B.R. 33 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 29, 2008

A careful review and analysis of Ohio law establish the contrary. … While it is well established that actual knowledge is irrelevant to a trustee’s status as a bona fide purchaser, the Bankruptcy Code strong arm clause does not immunize a trustee who has constructive knowledge of a prior

In Re Nicole Energy Services, Inc.

385 B.R. 201 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 8, 2008

Qualified Bidders would be permitted to participate at the Auction by telephone or in person; and 5. … The settlement, if approved, clearly exceeds the Committee’s stated goals for recovery. See generally Hearing Tr. II 345:14-17.

Dayton Title Agency, Inc. v. White Family Companies, Inc. (In Re Dayton Title Agency, Inc.)

292 B.R. 857 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 25, 2003

Consequently, DTABT does not qualify as a “business trust” and its bankruptcy case is dismissed. CONCLUSION In conclusion, the court makes the following determinations: 1. … Clearly, Chari meant to create a trust relationship between himself and Dayton Title with respect to the $5,000,000.00 check deposited in the escrow account.

In Re Zurface

95 B.R. 527 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 11, 1989

Donald Zurface, Jr.’s dominance of the corporate affairs of H-D from the date of H-D’s incorporation until the present time was established by the record. 30. … In order to qualify for such a tax-free exchange, Debtors would have had to retain at least fifty percent (50%) control over H-D (Tr. 267-69). 35.

Yust v. Henkel (In re Henkel)

490 B.R. 759 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 19, 2013

As such, it seems evident that the Debtor’s Counterclaims qualify as compulsory counterclaims. The Debtor in fact admits as much. … Accordingly, Yust has established the third element of claim preclusion.