Case law

In Re Ridgley

81 B.R. 65 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Dec 4, 1987

This is clearly not correct because, as has been pointed out, the definition of “transfer” is broad enough to include the fixing of a lien. … Although interest is not specifically included in the language of § 507(a)(7) which delineates those taxes which qualify for priority treatment, that section does refer to “allowed unsecured claims”.

In Re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Oregon

335 B.R. 815 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Dec 23, 2005

That is clearly relevant to the issues in these claims. Further, simply asking the questions cannot infringe on any First Amendment rights. There is no privilege to keep religious doctrine secret. 13. … Therefore, it is unnecessary for me to decide whether certain immunities would apply to protect him from being compelled to answer such questions.

Harry Ritchie's Jewelers, Inc. v. Chlebowski (In Re Chlebowski)

246 B.R. 639 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Mar 23, 2000

He testified that he *642 had made no effort to do so, but qualified that testimony by stating that the effort was not made simply because he did not have the money to redeem the diamond. … While it might be possible to track down the diamond, it will clearly take a considerable effort. The extent and measure of the injury will be discussed in more detail below.

In Re Heritage Mall Associates

184 B.R. 128 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Jul 11, 1995

This result is improper and may discourage qualified practitioners from participating in bankruptcy cases; a result that is clearly contrary to Congressional intent. 84 B.R. at 671, 672 . … The UST has argued, however, and this court agrees, that the burden is upon the applicant to establish the necessary factors which would enable this court to conclude that the fee agreement is reasonable.

Mitchell v. Transamerica Commercial Finance Corp. (In Re Doughty's Appliance, Inc.)

236 B.R. 407 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Jul 22, 1999

The disputes in this ease focus on whether the concerned customers of Doughty’s qualify as buyers in the ordinary course of business. b. Buyer in the Ordinary Course. … Based on that premise, Transamerica and Amana further argue that the Doughty’s customers concerned in this proceeding either have not established or cannot establish that the requirements of § 2-502 have been met to allow

Michael A. Grassmueck, Inc. v. WFS Financial, Inc. (In Re Cortez)

255 B.R. 324 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Nov 22, 2000

Since the commencement of the Debtors’ chapter 7 case, the Trustee has been the duly qualified chapter 7 trustee. … The Debtors clearly included the 1999 Ford on their Schedule B and identified WFS’ security interest in the 1999 Ford on Schedule D. There was no failure to disclose nor ambiguity in disclosure.

Plumbers Joint Apprenticeship & Journeyman Training Committee v. Rosen (In Re Rosen)

179 B.R. 935 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Feb 9, 1995

Although the debtor clearly owes a debt to the plaintiff, see 11 U.S.C. § 101 (12), the debtor contends that it cannot be within the scope of section 523(a)(8) because it is not a debt for an educational benefit overpayment … Given the debtor’s wrist injury and lack of training or experience that would qualify him for a well-paying job, I find that the debtor’s reliance upon his worker’s compensation benefits was a reasonable effort to obtain

Pacific Western Bank v. Johnson (In Re Johnson)

68 B.R. 193 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Dec 1, 1986

The Court finds that the Bank has met its burden and has proved, through establishing the transfers to Mr. Kemp and Mr. … Clearly, the Adeeb court contemplated recovery for the benefit of credi *200 tors, not recovery of cash which the debtor conceals from his creditors and spends, or purports to spend, prior to filing bankruptcy.

Chapman v. Bond (In re Bond)

548 B.R. 570 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Mar 7, 2016

“[T]he applicable state law must clearly define fiduciary duties and identify trust property.” Id. The requisite trust may be created by statute if it “[b]ear[s] the hallmarks of an express trust.” … "There is no intent or bad faith element needed to establish the claim...." Id. at *18. .

In Re Boulders on the River, Inc.

169 B.R. 969 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Jul 15, 1994

Clearly, an award of attorney’s fees and costs to Gentra are provided for under the Notes. … McCullen testified that he did not feel qualified to testify as an expert witness regarding the fees requested by NPPK in the Arizona proceedings. Mr.

Lenz v. Auto Acceptance (In Re Lenz)

448 B.R. 832 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Apr 7, 2011

Clearly, the Plaintiff falls within the scope of individuals as referenced in [§ 107(c) ]; however, taking the statute as a whole, the court does not believe that § 107(c) was enacted for the special benefit of any specific … Since the authority to administer and resolve disputes as to claims is within the core jurisdiction of bankruptcy courts (see 28 U.S.C. § 157 (b)(2)(B)), the subject matter of Count One of the Complaint clearly does not qualify

Hostmann v. First Interstate Bank of Oregon, N.A. (In Re XTI Xonix Technologies, Inc.)

156 B.R. 821 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Jul 19, 1993

It is based on general principles of justice and does not spring from contract although it may be confirmed or qualified by contract. … The Fastrans parties did not dispute that this language clearly and unambiguously waived all rights the guarantor, upon payment, had against any party.

In Re Mikkelsen Farms, Inc.

74 B.R. 280 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · May 19, 1987

The structure of § 101(17) clearly anticipates the court to make a thorough examination, from several perspectives, of the eligibility of a debtor under Chapter 12. … Marks standing Chapter 12 trustee for Oregon and established his compensation.

Oregon v. Roman Catholic Archbishop (In Re Roman Catholic Archbishop)

345 B.R. 686 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Jul 20, 2006

The Fund established hereby is intended to be perpetual. … That is clearly not the position debtor takes with regard to the use of the income from the fund. I conclude that debtor, through its predecessor the 1909 corporation, was the set-tlor of the fund.

In Re Medina

177 B.R. 335 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Oct 11, 1994

First, as the Aetna court stated, the statutory language of § 6323 clearly applies only with respect to the lien created under § 6321. … Certain priorities, however, are established by 48 CFR 32.803(e).

Revivify, LLC v. Thrivify LLC

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Mar 7, 2025

First, specific performance of the agreement is impossible because one of the parties to the agreement is now immune from that remedy. … Co.,26 it held that “the rule is well established that nominal damages may be recovered for the bare infringement of a right unaccompanied by any actual damage.” And in that court’s 1952 decision in Hall v.

Ameriflex Engineering LLC

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Mar 31, 2021

“A matter qualifies as an ‘adversary proceeding,’ as opposed to a ‘contested matter,’ if it is included in the list given in Bankruptcy Rule 7001.” Barrientos v. … Had it done so, counsel, through further questioning, could have explored the alleged inconsistent statements and clearly established or rebutted the claim for perjury. But the time for that analysis has passed.

Vans Inc. v. Rosendahl (In Re Rosendahl)

307 B.R. 199 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Feb 18, 2004

light of his perception of Rosendahl as truth challenged, the Arbitrator noted that he was very careful in evaluating the credibility of other witnesses, including Bair and the representatives of the Chinese factories, who clearly … Parties to an arbitration... are often afforded the opportunity for a hearing before an impartial and qualified officer, at which they may give formal recorded testimony under oath, cross-examine and compel the testimony

In Re Myers

147 B.R. 221 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Nov 13, 1992

Mandatory indemnification has also developed because of the lack of insurance and the practical consequences of failing to reimburse directors for the defense costs of unfounded lawsuits, namely, that few qualified people … Thus, the basis for the EOUST’s decision was clearly erroneous.

Phillip Charles Leavell

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Apr 25, 2025

Thus, this dispute is about whether the law provides for an exemption, and not whether the debtor, under the facts of his case, is qualified to claim that exemption. … Unlike all these other exemption statutes, ORS 18.785 does not clearly and directly state that up to $2,500 in a judgment debtor’s accounts in a financial institution is exempt from execution. E.