Case law

Murray v. Withrow (In Re PM-II Associates, Inc.)

100 B.R. 940 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · May 17, 1989

For purposes of subsection (b)(1), the State qualifies as a “creditor” as defined in § 101(9) to include an entity that has a claim against the debtor that arose before the order of relief. … That language would seem to clearly indicate that a penalty to be paid to the state is considered a debt for purposes of applying the Bankruptcy Code.

In Re Long

142 B.R. 234 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 23, 1992

Clearly, the facts in this case demonstrate that the IRS had knowledge of the stay. … Debt- or attempted to establish that this collapse was directly attributable to the IRS’s actions.

Nichols v. Internal Revenue Service (In Re Nichols)

143 B.R. 104 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 8, 1992

As to § 106(c), however, although it also waives sovereign immunity, it does not “establish unambiguously that the waiver extends to monetary claims.” Id. … The Nordic Village court concluded that: “[njeither § 106(c) nor any other provision of law establishes an unequivocal textual waiver of the Government’s immunity from a trustee’s claims for monetary relief.”

In Re Goodrich

7 B.R. 590 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 19, 1980

To establish ... uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; ... … Immunity from federal regulation is not gained through forehanded contracts. Were it otherwise the paramount powers of Congress could be nullified by ‘prophetic discernment.’

Justice v. Ohio, Bureau of Workers' Compensation (In Re Justice)

224 B.R. 631 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 3, 1998

To establish ... uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States. U.S. Const, art. I, § 8, el. 4. … In an effort to override state sovereign immunity, § 106(a) of the Bankruptcy Code provides in pertinent part: Notwithstanding an assertion of sovereign immunity, sovereign immunity is abrogated as to a governmental unit

Winters National Bank & Trust Co. of Dayton v. Schear Group (In Re Schear Realty & Investment Co.)

25 B.R. 463 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 27, 1982

. § 1471 , as elaborated and qualified in this Court’s opinion in Benchic v. Century Entertainment Corp. [ 21 B.R. 160 ], Case No. 3-81-04024, Adv. No. 3-81-0242 and 3-81-0516 (December 7, 1982). … Before the decision in Northern Pipeline judicial immunity was no doubt complete protection until the jurisdiction statute was declared unconstitutional.

Gilbert v. Foy (In Re Foy)

164 B.R. 595 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 1, 1994

. § 1056 (d), but then proceeds in other sections to allow conduct which is clearly contrary to the meaning and purpose of the language used in that statute. … “IRC 401(a), 26 U.S.C. § 401 (k), outlines the requirements necessary to establish a qualified trust, i.e., a trust exempted for tax purposes.

In Re Cronkleton

18 B.R. 792 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 23, 1982

One of the bases for objection to the confirmation of the Chapter 13 plans proposed in these cases is the failure of the debtors to qualify for Chapter 13 relief. … While the debtors, Lawrence and Coral Cronkleton, have attempted to argue that they are only liable for a pro rata share of the $570,955.74 obligation to WPCA, the notes executed by them clearly establish otherwise.

In Re Labig

74 B.R. 507 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 8, 1987

By definition debtors do not qualify as “family farmers” if their aggregate debts exceed $1,500,000. 11 U.S.C. § 101 (17). … Clearly, a debtor may not shoehorn himself into chapter 12 or chapter 13 merely by listing debts as “disputed.” Craig Corp. v. Albano (In re Albano), 55 B.R. 363 (D.N.D.Ill.1985).

In Re Integrity Supply, Inc.

417 B.R. 514 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 21, 2009

It is well established the subsections of 503(b) are examples of what may qualify as administrative expenses, but do not limit the Court in deciding what may be allowed as an administrative expense under § 503(b). … 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.

Fed. Ins. Co. v. Courtney (In re Courtney)

596 B.R. 645 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 18, 2019

President, alone, is not sufficient to establish that familiarity. … Pleiman never specifically identified which bank statement fell into that category nor did he establish that he is a custodian or other qualifying witness as to any bank statements provided by a prosecutor.

In re Boddie

569 B.R. 297 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · May 24, 2017

In certain circumstances, however, a defendant may enjoy qualified immunity for statements made to police officers. See Dehlendorf v. City of Gahanna, Ohio, 786 F.Supp.2d 1358, 1364 (S.D. Ohio 2011). … Moreover, if the statements which Debtor believes are defamatory were made to the police, 16 PNC may be entitled to qualified immunity regarding the statements.

Dwyer v. United States (In re Dwyer)

26 B.R. 366 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 23, 1982

In 1981, Debtor then qualified for military retirement because of completion of twenty years of service. … government, respectively, if the recipient subsequently qualified for retirement pay under titles 10 or 14 of the United States Code.

In Re Thatcher

167 B.R. 466 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 6, 1994

By adding the words “or either, or other person’s dependent upon such person,” the legislature clearly indicated that neither the spouse nor children had to be dependents of the insured in order to qualify as beneficiaries … It is an established principal that exemption statutes are to be liberally construed in favor of the debtor. In re Lester, 141 B.R. 157, 163 (S.D.Ohio 1991).

In Re McNealy

31 B.R. 932 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 29, 1983

The facts establish clearly that the failure to complete payments under the Plan was not due to circumstances for which Kathryn should be held accountable. 11 U.S.C. § 1328 (b)(1). … The facts do not establish clearly that it would be impractical to propose and obtain approval of a modification of the plan in accordance with section 1329 to increase or *935 reduce the amounts of payments on the claims

In Re Leimbach

99 B.R. 796 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 13, 1989

It was established by a trust agreement with Banc-Ohio National Bank. … Ohio Revised Code § 2329.66(A)(10)(c) clearly provides for such entitlement and no showing was made that those funds were deposited to evade debts.

In re Carter-Bland

382 B.R. 743 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 20, 2008

domestic relations order (“QDRO”) (as defined in [Internal Revenue] Code Section 414(p)) approved pursuant to procedures established by the Plan Administrator. … Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Plan shall comply with any domestic relations order that, in accordance with procedures established by the Administrator, is determined to be a qualified domestic relations order (as defined

In Re Delmoe

365 B.R. 124 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 26, 2007

However, that language was contained in the Will which was crafted in 1997 and which did not establish or contemplate a trust. … Clearly, the Trust payments to Mrs. Delmoe, do not qualify as spousal or child *130 support. The question becomes, do they qualify as an allowance or maintenance?

In re Federated Department Stores, Inc.

135 B.R. 973 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 8, 1992

First, there are claims which would qualify as abandoned property claims as of the date of the filing of the bankruptcy petition. … Third, there are claims which would qualify as abandoned property claims after confirmation of the debtors’ plan.

In Re Carterbland

382 B.R. 743 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 20, 2008

domestic relations order ("QDRO") (as defined in [Internal Revenue] Code Section 414(p)) approved pursuant to procedures established by the Plan Administrator. … Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Plan shall comply with any domestic relations order that, in accordance with procedures established by the Administrator, is determined to be a qualified domestic relations order (as defined