Case law

Chaffin v. Gladney (In re Chaffin)

276 B.R. 203 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 19, 2001

The plaintiff previously had identified himself as a witness and indicated he would testify regarding the work performed or not performed on his residence, the qualify of such work, and the payments he made. … Based on the evidence, the equities of this case clearly favor allowance of the defendant’s claim as a general unsecured claim.

In Re Robertson

84 B.R. 109 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 4, 1988

First, John Deere contends that the debtor does not qualify as a debtor under 11 U.S.C. § 109 . … The evidence and testimony clearly indicate that the debtor’s intent when he purchased the equipment was to use that equipment in the partnership.

Singer v. Singer (In Re Singer)

18 B.R. 782 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 12, 1982

She was fully qualified, given the attainment of the statutory minimum age, for receipt of Social Security benefits by virtue of her previous employment. … It is clear that Lethia Singer would have merited some award of alimony by virtue of her relatively low earning capacity, her age and health, and perhaps the living standard established by the parties during the marriage.

In Re Buzza

287 B.R. 417 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 23, 2002

The court noted that Ohio’s exemption for IRAs is “geared toward retirement accounts established by individuals.” … By allowing states to “opt-out” of the list of federal exemptions in favor of those created under state law, Congress clearly contemplated the important role state exemption statutes would play in bankruptcy.

In Re Pierce

82 B.R. 874 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 10, 1987

If such payment were to qualify as cause, the “Trustee could routinely object to all such plans, and the three-year Chapter 13 plan would become the exception, rather than the rule.” Id. … Clearly, the Memphis Bank decision has no application in the cases before the Court, given the fact that no allegations regarding the nature of any of these debtors’ pre-plan conduct have been raised.

Miami Valley Production Credit Ass'n v. Tegtmeyer (In Re Tegtmeyer)

31 B.R. 555 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 21, 1983

Having satisfied all of these criteria the Tegtmeyer Brothers fail to qualify for Chapter 13 relief under the Federal Bankruptcy Code.” The facts demonstrate clearly that some form of partnership does exist. … A qualified debtor in Chapter 13 is not precluded from subjecting his interest in partnership (or other jointly owned) assets to the benefit of all creditors.

In Re Guikema

329 B.R. 607 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 14, 2005

(iii) The plan or contract is not qualified under the “Internal Revenue Code of 1986,” 100 Stat.2085, 26 U.S.C. 1, as amended. Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 2329.66(A)(10)(b) (emphasis added). … Plumb, Jr., The Recommendations of the Commission on the Bankruptcy Laws — Exempt and Immune Property, 61 Va.

Kassicieh v. Battisti (In Re Kassicieh)

425 B.R. 467 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 2, 2010

Instead, the court determined that § 101(14A)(A) more clearly identifies who can be a payee for purposes of a domestic support obligation and “[t]he requirement of that paragraph that an obligation be ‘owed to or recoverable … The Gentilini court reasoned: This Court concludes that both elements of the statute must be established to except a debt from discharge under § 523(a)(5).

In re LCL Income Properties

184 B.R. 539 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 11, 1995

Clearly, this arm of LBR 3.13 contemplated that schedules would be filed within the times contemplated in FRBP 1007(c). … We find the present record to be inadequate to establish either proposal as the correct interest rate.

Matter of Elliott

31 B.R. 33 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 8, 1983

For a claim of exemption to be successfully accomplished, such claim must be clearly asserted and the property claimed as exempt must be clearly described. … The report shall be filed with the court no later than 15 days after the trustee qualifies.

In Re Kocher

78 B.R. 844 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 2, 1987

Section 1205(b)(3) clearly and unequivocally states that, where a creditor’s claim is secured by farmland, the payment by the debtor of a fair rental value constitutes adequate protection iper se. … No testimony was offered to establish the precise crop acreage base that has been established for Tracts A and B.

Transohio Savings Bank v. Huntington National Bank (In re Cardinal Industries, Inc.)

139 B.R. 703 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 31, 1991

Only the following documents were filed by the parties to establish any factual allegations: (1) Declaration of Lawrence J. … Clearly, the test as it has been variously articulated focuses on antagonism of interests between the class representative and the other putative class members.

In Re Little

116 B.R. 615 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 24, 1990

After gaining an understanding of these guidelines, PCSE argues that the Debtor knowingly manipulated two subsequent loan applications so as to qualify for a loan. … More importantly, *620 perhaps, the Debtor has established that her plan has been proposed in good faith.

Bank One, Portsmouth, N.A. v. Dettwiller (In Re Dettwiller)

156 B.R. 540 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 1, 1993

Kubota, however, argues that the present record is sufficient to establish that the sale was not in the ordinary course of business. It says that this record establishes that Charles B. … The parameters of good faith are not clearly delineated by the case law. See Martin Marietta Corp. v. N.J.

Beverly Enterprises v. Eversole (In Re Eversole)

110 B.R. 318 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 6, 1990

Although this was the first purchase-sale transaction between these parties, Debtor and Hill were reputed to be qualified developers and operators of nursing home facilities. … Here, Beverly clearly relied upon Debtor’s false pretenses and representations regarding the intended use of the $100,000 advance.

Bent v. ABMD Ltd. (In Re ABMD Ltd.)

439 B.R. 475 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 17, 2010

Defendant further asserts that, if the class is certified, the form and manner of notice to the class should be modified from what is proposed by the Plaintiffs to provide a more clearly defined class and to enhance potential … The notice must clearly and concisely state in plain, easily understood language: (i) the nature of the action; (ii) the definition of the class certified; (iii) the class claims, issues, or defenses; (iv) that a class member

Earls v. United States (In re Earls)

549 B.R. 871 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 15, 2016

Earls argues that the most obvious tax purpose served by the 2008 Filings is to establish the correct amount of his tax liability. … In contrast, the Sixth Circuit in Hindenlang clearly considered timing to be a relevant factor in determining whether there was a reasonable effort to comply with the tax laws.

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Hodge (In Re Hodge)

216 B.R. 932 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 4, 1998

Upon a review of the record and the findings made by the Court in the District Court Action, this Court finds that the final judgment in the District Court Action establishes actual fraud for the purposes of 11 U.S.C. § 523 … Clearly, in a case where the issue of fraud was fully litigated, as occurred in the District Court Action, collateral estoppel is appropriate.

In Re Frost

96 B.R. 804 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 10, 1989

Because the debtors’ motion clearly identified the amount of Atlantic’s *806 secured claim as an issue and Atlantic was aware that valuation was an issue, the Court denied the continuance. … Normally the lending institution selects the appraiser to establish the property’s value.

Rhiel v. OhioHealth Corp. (In Re Hunter)

380 B.R. 753 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 24, 2008

Plaintiffs also claim that the OhioHealth Plan is not a true trust but is merely a *767 “qualified trust” under § 401(f) of the Internal Revenue Code. … Nor does it help VALIC that Separate Account A is a “qualified trust” under § 401(f) of the Internal Revenue Code.