Case law

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

126 B.R. 754 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 14, 1991

The court remanded the matter for determination of this issue, but clearly held that the district court would have “related to” jurisdiction if identification of the ownership interests in the funds would affect the treatment … The Court notes that TransOhio bears the burden of establishing this Court’s jurisdiction. In re Verrazano Holding Corp., 86 B.R. 755, 762 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1988) (citations omitted). .

In re Harkins

491 B.R. 518 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · May 1, 2013

Certainly, expenses in the categories already addressed in the National and Local Standards cannot qualify as ‘other’ necessary expenses. … Coming back to the 707(b)(2) means test in Chapter 7, we saw that it did not clearly allow for the deduction of business expenses.”

In re Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc.

134 B.R. 239 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 25, 1991

We find the charges of Liberty Mutual and ACF to be clearly within that language. … Insurers say that to qualify for prejudgment interest, the underlying amount sought must both be liquidated and due and payable. They say that neither condition is met here.

In re Johnson

565 B.R. 835 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 10, 2017

Thereafter, the Court set a date for a final evidentiary hearing and established the briefing schedule previously mentioned. … Because these activities occurred after the Debtor filed his bankruptcy peti *843 tion on March 8, 2016, the acts clearly violated the automatic stay. 4 3.

Unencumbered Assets Trust v. Biomar Technologies, Inc. (In Re National Century Financial Enterprises, Inc.)

341 B.R. 198 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 18, 2006

Then he qualified his answer stating, “I didn’t do any deep analysis. I didn’t perform any diligence or background work with respect to the numbers.” Id. This testimony hardly qualifies as concrete or quantifiable. … This, however, does not establish a valid and enforceable obligation on NCFE to pay for those alleged services. See 11 U.S.C. § 502 (b)(1).

Hindenlang v. United States (In Re Hindenlang)

205 B.R. 874 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 24, 1997

Supreme Court precedent establishes that a proper return must have the following attributes: (1) it must purport to be a return; (2) it must be sworn to as such; (3) it must contain sufficient data to allow calculation of … Clearly, neither ease stands for the proposition asserted by IRS in the present case. Further, no citations to the Internal Revenue Code for this proposition have been provided.

In Re Ridgewood Apartments of DeKalb County, Ltd.

174 B.R. 712 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 15, 1994

The Note clearly allows Fannie Mae to collect reasonable attorney fees in the event of a default. The Note further establishes Georgia law as the controlling law. … The legislative history in 11 U.S.C. § 502 (b)(2) clearly points out that interest representing an original discounting of a debt is disallowed as unmatured interest.

In Re Law

37 B.R. 501 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 24, 1984

It clearly indicated that it would operate to remove nonpossessory nonpurchase-money liens on property that would have been exempt were it not for the lien. See S.Rep. 95-989, supra, at 76. … Such a construction would be contrary to established rules of statutory construction. See Jackson v. Kelly, 557 F.2d 735 (10th Cir.1977); United States v.

In Re Tudor

342 B.R. 540 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 9, 2005

Whatever modifiers are used in a sentence, they must be placed so that they relate clearly to the words they modify.” Id. at 20 (quoting John L. … 214 , 273 N.E.2d 893, 895-96 (1971) (“Consideration of the [statute's] title is especially proper where, as in Ohio, ... there is a constitutional provision that no bill shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly

Staats v. Harper (In Re Harper)

132 B.R. 349 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 4, 1991

Clearly, this raises questions as to whether the debtor received fair consideration for the Transfer. Yet another telling badge of fraud is that the Transfer was made between husband and wife. … According to the defendants, the debtor transferred his Interest to his wife to help her qualify for an equity-based loan.

In Re McDaniels

86 B.R. 128 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 26, 1988

Clearly there is no right to a nunc pro tunc order of appointment. In re Johnson, 21 B.R. 217 (Bankr.D.C.1982). … To establish the basis for a nunc pro tunc order of employment, an applicant must demonstrate each of the following requirements and, all evidentiary matters must be established by clear and convincing evidence: 1.

Rhiel v. Ohio Health Corp. (In Re Guikema)

363 B.R. 853 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 19, 2007

While Grady may not be the administrator of a retirement plan denominated “Grady Memorial Hospital 403(b) Plan,” there is no question that Grady established a tax-deferred annuity arrangement under Internal Revenue Code § … ha[d] an interest in maintaining the tax qualified status of th[e] plan”).

In Re Thymewood Apartments, Ltd.

129 B.R. 505 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 28, 1991

Retroactivity Under Florida Law Generally Florida law establishes that a newly enacted law applies only prospectively unless the legislature clearly indicates otherwise. Walker & La Berge Inc., v. … From a reading of the entire agreement the parties clearly did not intend to separate the rents from the underlying property.

In Re Planned Systems, Inc.

78 B.R. 852 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 14, 1987

As the In re Kim court noted: Absent the requirement that a creditor establish a prima facie case to qualify for relief from stay, relief from stay motions would be reduced to one-liners: By simply stating, “I move for relief … While the Court finds that KMG has established a prima facie case of lack of adequate protection under § 362(d)(1), it clearly did so by only a narrow margin.

Slone-Stiver v. Broock (In Re Tower Metal Alloy Co.)

200 B.R. 598 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 2, 1996

Plaintiff-Trustee’s document requests clearly cross this line. … This clearly exceeds the minimal exception contemplated above.

TennOhio Transportation Co. v. Navistar Financial Corp. (In Re TennOhio Transportation Co.)

269 B.R. 769 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 6, 2001

Therefore, Navistar did not establish the second element of its defense as required by 11 U.S.C. § 547 (c)(2). … In summary, the Court believes that the present situation is clearly one where payments to one creditor, i.e., Navistar, decreased the opportunity for a fair and equitable distribution to all creditors.

In Re Trenton Ridge Investors, LLC

461 B.R. 440 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 23, 2011

This case clearly does not fit within any of the above “liberty” categories. … Similarly, according to one bankruptcy court, “a due-on-sale clause is not something so sacrosanct that it is immune from modification in a bankruptcy setting.”

In Re Nosker

267 B.R. 555 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 18, 2001

repeated directions, the Debtor refused to provide any documentation regarding his financial status” and holding that “[a] debtor who does not produce credible evidence of the existence of a regular income ... does not qualify … (“Motions for a new trial or to alter or amend a judgment must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence.

Star Banc Finance, Inc. v. Bird (In Re Bird)

224 B.R. 622 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 31, 1998

The rule is also well established in this circuit that to qualify for the fraud exception under § 523(a)(2)(A): [T]he creditor must prove the debtor obtained money through a material misrepresentation that at the time the … Neither of these qualify as expenditures for the maintenance and support of the Debtors or their dependents.

Elder-Beerman Stores Corp. v. Thomasville Furniture Indus. Inc. (In Re Elder-Beerman Stores Corp.)

206 B.R. 142 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 12, 1997

Although, for the reasons more clearly stated below, this court rejects some of Mr. Taub’s conclusions, this is for reasons more clearly viewed as evidentiary weight and not admissibility. See, e.g., Berry v. … Expert witnesses are qualified to issue opinions based upon both admissible and inadmissible evidence, even if the expert did not directly experience the underlying acts themselves. See Fed.R.Evid. 702.