Case law

Orfa Corp. of America v. Cappello (In Re Orfa Corp. of America)

115 B.R. 799 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 20, 1990

However, it appears that, even if a quorum were not present, the Board’s actions could have been, and allegedly were, ratified at a meeting held shortly after the hearing, at which a quorum clearly was present. … Hunter’s Guide, Inc., 40 B.R. 29, 32-34 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.1984) (previous directors of corporation serving only until successors were qualified were authorized to file bankruptcy).

Escher v. Decision One Mortgage Co. (In Re Escher)

369 B.R. 862 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 12, 2007

Escher, Countrywide took pains to establish that the Plaintiffs were not accusing Countrywide of having actively violated TILA. Countrywide Brief, 8 quoting Escher Dep. @ 120-122. … So even if the Court were to find that the lender failed to disclose the finance charge, nothing in this record, establishes scienter on Countrywide’s part.

In Re Fricker

115 B.R. 809 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 22, 1990

Clearly, the Debtors have the burden of proof to establish any such alleged violation and they failed to meet this burden. … The balance on the instant loan would clearly not be liquidated in three years.

At & T Universal Card Services Corp. v. Cheuk Hon Wong (In Re Cheuk Hon Wong)

207 B.R. 822 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 14, 1997

In *828 either event, however, the Debtor was clearly required to make at least a “minimum payment” to AT & T each month in which there remained an outstanding balance due on the account. … The Court is satisfied that Walters, an AT & T Corporate Investigations Manager (whose job required him, inter alia, to review the computerized records of individuals suspected of credit card fraud), is a "qualified witness

Rolley v. Spector (In Re Spector)

133 B.R. 733 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 29, 1991

It is clearly required that the plaintiff in a successful § 523(a)(6) action establish that the debtor has committed an unjustified, wrongful act, with at least scien-ter that the result of the act was necessarily to produce … Generally, if an act is determined to “constitute embezzlement” for purposes of § 523(a)(4), it may also qualify as a willful and malicious act of conversion within the scope of § 523(a)(6).

In Re Independent Pier Co.

209 B.R. 333 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 27, 1997

The fourth factor which must be met to establish a charging lien is akin to the second. The attorney must show that the lien claim is limited to fees incurred in the litiga *339 tion by which the fund was raised. … Under this view of the world there clearly is nothing material remaining for Dechert to “perform” under the agreement.

Liebersohn v. Campus Crusade for Christ, Inc. (In re C.F. Foods, L.P.)

280 B.R. 103 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 3, 2002

Knowledge that future investors will not be paid is sufficient to establish actual intent to defraud them. … However, the Transfers do not qualify for the charitable contribution exception of 11 U.S.C. § 548 (a)(2) because the Debtor is not a "natural person” and, therefore, the Transfers do not fit the definition of "charitable

In Re Wilson

85 B.R. 722 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 1988

Since divorce proceedings are clearly within the province of state courts, 11 U.S. … The debtor has suggested no federal interest which could mandate a result different from that established by state law. 8 .

In Re Klein

106 B.R. 396 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 19, 1989

Therefore, the instant mortgage includes at least certain “appliances,” and would not qualify under § 1322(b)(2) under the Hougland court’s analysis. … In fact, ample authority establishes that the obligation set forth in a note merges with a judgment on the note, just as a mortgage obligation merges with a foreclosure judgment.

Grigsby v. Thorp Consumer Discount Co. (In Re Grigsby)

119 B.R. 479 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 9, 1990

Except in mortgage transactions, this charge is clearly a finance charge for TIL purposes, whatever its characterization under state law. … Under the TIL Act prior to simplification, it was likely that the finder or broker would qualify as an “arranger” of credit.

Miller v. Blatstein (In Re Main, Inc.)

223 B.R. 457 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 6, 1998

Consequently, it is clear that the use of the “Philly Rock” name by Airbev at its Airport establishment did not transfer to that establishment any ready-made customer base. … The very fact that the District Court significantly altered the November 7, 1997 orders, clearly establishes that at least the initial figure was not meant to be a final order.

In Re Lenton

358 B.R. 651 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 15, 2006

One of those is “involuntary deductions,” which qualify only “if it is a requirement of the job; ie., union dues, uniforms, work shoes.” Id. … Because I find that Debtor’s ability to pay is sufficient to establish abuse, I need not address other factors.

Miller v. Jannetta (In re Irwin)

509 B.R. 808 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 15, 2014

Pennsylvania case law also strictly applies the requirement that the acknowledged debt be clearly identified. See Raab v. … This qualified statement was not the equivalent of an unconditional promise to pay.

In Re Mushroom Transportation Co.

78 B.R. 754 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 21, 1987

In addition to establishing the federal substantive right to assume or reject, section 365 establishes procedures for exercising this decision, requires court approval for assumption, see e.g., In re Walat Farms, Inc., 69 … Boyle, 768 F.2d 1489 , 1494 n. 6 (D.C.Cir.1985): We agree that because UC assumed the leases, payments necessary to cure its default before assumption and to satisfy its obligations after assumption qualify as expenses of

LaBrum & Doak, LLP v. Bechtle (In Re LaBrum & Doak, LLP)

222 B.R. 749 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 30, 1998

In 1994 the Debtor’s then-accountant advised the Debtor to adopt the method of accounting for the Lease set forth in § 467, because the Lease qualified as a “467 Rental Agreement.” … Legal interests and rights which are important in establishing federal tax liability are created by and under state law. See Morgan v.

Williams v. Gelt Financial Corp. (In Re Williams)

232 B.R. 629 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 9, 1999

Instead, she provided a comparison between the two Transactions, explaining that only the First Transaction qualified as a “high cost” loan. … The testimony presented at trial established that the Defendant failed to provide these advance disclosures.

In Re Jefley, Inc.

219 B.R. 88 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 1998

included reductions in vacation times, holidays, and personal days; a freeze on employees’ pensions and health and welfare contributions; an increase from 16 hours to 20 hours in the minimum weekly work-time necessary to qualify … The balance .of the equities must clearly favor rejection of the collective bargaining agreement (footnote omitted). It is established in this Circuit that the burden of proving all nine elements falls upon the Debtor.

Labrum & Doak v. Brown (In Re Labrum & Doak, LLP)

225 B.R. 93 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 14, 1998

The principles established in the equitable distribution cases relied upon by Solo appear inappropriately adapted here. … Moreover, these terms, particularly the Half/Third Proposal, were clearly never agreed to by the Ryan Firm Defendants.

Ettinger & Associates LLC v. Miller (In re Miller)

529 B.R. 73 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 25, 2015

The supervisory rule, established by the Third Circuit in Mary Ann Pen-siero, Inc. v. … Miller, that the Millers would not qualify for a mortgage modification and he therefore did not review an application for legal services that he had given the Millers.

In re Holler

463 B.R. 733 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 13, 2011

Under the four tests established by the Third Circuit Court in Hupfel’s, I conclude that the Judgments of Debtors are clearly not joint obligations through which Debtors consented to surrender the protections of their ownership … "D” shows clearly that the mortgaged property is Debtor’s home, 1618 Alex Court, Allentown (Salisbury Township), PA 18103.