Case law

In Re Welch

74 B.R. 401 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · May 29, 1987

Each creditor grounds its motion upon the alleged failure of the debtors to qualify as “family farmers” under the new chapter 12 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. … Had the debtors filed jointly in 1986, it is mathematically clear that they would qualify as debtors to seek relief of chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code.

In Re Carpenter

79 B.R. 316 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 1, 1987

Carpenter clearly show that the debtors continue to own the farm commodities they produced in which CCC has taken a security interest to secure the repayment of funds advanced as loans. … That liability must be established or unchallenged before a claim becomes a debt.

Hughes-Bechtol, Inc. v. State (In Re Hughes-Bechtol, Inc.)

141 B.R. 946 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 30, 1992

Hughes-Bechtol, 124 B.R. at 1015-18 (filing of proofs of claim waive sovereign immunity of State and its agencies). C. … In the Court of Claims, the State has waived its immunity and has consented to have its liability determined. O.R.C. § 2743.02.

In Re Bresnahan

183 B.R. 506 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 16, 1995

Testimony received at the hearing in this matter clearly established that the $7000 is reasonably necessary for the support of the debtor and his spouse. … , was to protect funds intended primarily for maintenance and support of the debtor’s family, (citation omitted) This legislative intent would be frustrated if exempt funds were automatically deprived of their statutory immunity

In Re Fulton

211 B.R. 247 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 7, 1997

This Court declines the invitation by these debtors to place an interpretation on §§ 506 and 553, that clearly was not intended by the Congress. … Fulton clearly refers to his retirement account as ERISA-qualified.

Staats v. United States (In re Frederick Petroleum Corp.)

144 B.R. 758 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 20, 1992

At the outset, the Court notes the well-established rule that “[t]he United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit save as it consents to be sued, ... and the terms of its consent to be sued in any court define that court … Clearly, § 6332, on its face, is a defense for the “person in possession of (or obligated with respect to) property or rights to property” to a demand of the IRS for surrender of property upon which levy has been made.

United States v. Collier

8 B.R. 909 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 6, 1981

These defenses give rise to several complicated issues clearly to delineate exactly what the defendant wishes to prove to the Court. … The right to a discharge is purely statutory, and the Congress may at any time amend, qualify, or remove this statutory right.

In Re Rudicil

343 B.R. 181 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 7, 2006

It is well established that statutory analysis begins with the language of the statute itself and where that language *183 is plain, the function of the court is simply to enforce the clearly expressed terms. … Section 522(f)(2)(A) clearly states that only two things can be aggregated: liens and claimed exemptions.

Johnson v. Markunes (In Re Markunes)

78 B.R. 875 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 9, 1987

Quite clearly this bankruptcy case is the result of an intense two-party dispute which began in 1985 and continues to today. … However, the evidence at the hearing did not establish that avoidance of a jail sentence was the sole reason for filing.

In re Mabrey

51 B.R. 383 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 16, 1985

by or under the auspices of an insider that employed the person at the time his rights under the plan or contract arose; (ii) The payment is on account of age or length of service; (iii) The plan or contract is not qualified … To hold that such an assignment was exempt to the furniture store would clearly make a mockery of the intended benificent purpose of the exemption contained in O.R.C. § 2329.66(A)(10)(b).

Ducker v. Lohrey (In Re Williams)

33 B.R. 973 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 31, 1983

Plaintiff is the duly qualified and acting trustee in the within case. 2. The Court has jurisdiction over this adversary proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1471 and 11 U.S.C. § 542 . 3. The debtor, Timothy D. … To require the Defendant to make such a payment under the circumstances of this case is clearly at odds with any notions of equity of which we are aware.

Noland v. Fre, Inc. (In re Jackson)

95 B.R. 68 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 5, 1988

In the instant matter there is clearly a dispute concerning the value of Mr. Jackson’s ring. … Finally, the court notes that, while the parties agree that the pawned ring was subject to a lien in favor of Elder-Beerman in the amount of approximately $7,000.00, the documents before the court do not clearly establish

In Re Smith

267 B.R. 568 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 30, 2001

This has been held to be sufficient to qualify as an expert in the valuation of real property.”); Neuger v. … While he was permitted to testify as an expert witness, O’Neil’s lack of appraisal training and limited experience as an appraiser clearly affect the weight accorded to his testimony.

Patterson v. Matyac (In Re Matyac)

102 B.R. 125 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · May 15, 1989

However, while a divorce decree may label a particular obligation as support, it is well established that the nature of the obligation is determined by federal bankruptcy law. Singer v. … Therefore, any child support owing, but unpaid, from the entry of the divorce decree until the commencement of the defendant’s bankruptcy case qualifies as support under the second prong of the Calhoun test.

Ledford v. Sears (In re Williams)

5 B.R. 706 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 26, 1980

The record establishes that the debtors paid their money directly to Sears within 90 days prior to the date they filed their petition for relief with this Court. … Since the defendant was not listed as a creditor in the bankruptcy case, clearly it received more than it would have received if the transfer had not been made. See 11 U.S.C. § 547 (b)(1) through (5).

Matter of Liberal Market, Inc.

24 B.R. 653 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 18, 1982

There has not been established any reason, in fairness to all contributors, to deem any participant as “more expert” than the others. … Fees for legal services (A) A lawyer shall not enter into an agreement for, charge, or collect an illegal or clearly excessive fee.

Liquidating Trustee of the Amcast Unsecured Creditor Liquidating Trust v. Baker (In Re Amcast Industrial Corp.)

365 B.R. 91 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 12, 2007

See Deborah Cahalane, Comment, 1986 *110 Ohio Corporation Amendments: Expanding the Scope of Director Immunity, 56 U. Cin. L.Rev. 663 (1987); Radol, 772 F.2d at 256. … Making contractually mandated payments on an antecedent debt clearly constitutes “value” under Ohio Rev.Code § 1336.03.

Margraf v. Oliver (In Re Oliver)

28 B.R. 420 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 24, 1983

II The next basic issue before the Court is whether Debtors qualify for relief under 11 U.S.C. Chapter 13. It is the determination of the Court that the instant Debtors do, in fact, qualify as Chapter 13 debtors. … It is the determination of the Court that Plaintiffs have not established even a prima facie case to sustain a finding that 11 U.S.C. § 1325 is violative of the Fifth Amendment.

Matter of Williams

5 B.R. 706 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 26, 1980

The record establishes that the debtors paid their money directly to Sears within 90 days prior to the date they filed their petition for relief with this Court. … Since the defendant was not listed as a creditor in the bankruptcy case, clearly it received more than it would have received if the transfer had not been made. See 11 U.S.C. § 547 (b)(1) through (5).

Eder v. Queen City Grain, Inc. (In Re Queen City Grain, Inc.)

51 B.R. 722 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 25, 1985

Clearly the drafters of this statute had a very limited meaning in mind for good faith. … That is, for purposes of § 550(b)(1), the legislative intent was limited to closing the door on attempts to immunize a questionable transaction through involvement of a third party.