Case law

In Re Smith

179 B.R. 437 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 2, 1995

In one sense, the Order established a very short bar date for GM. … The liquidity of the Debtor’s alleged equity in the Home is clearly illusory because it is rather clear that the Debtor’s interest in the Home is not marketable.

Cara Corp. v. Continental Bank (In Re Cara Corp.)

148 B.R. 760 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 23, 1992

Clearly, there is no evidence that the Debtor expected to be paid by the Bank for continuing to do business with Wood. … The evidence clearly establishes that the Debtor did not inquire of the Bank as to the particular financial status of Wood.

In Re Bellwoar

302 B.R. 346 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 17, 2003

This Court has previously determined that virtually ah of Bellwoar’s assets are exempt under Pennsylvania state law in that they consist of funds in a qualified retirement account and property owned by her as a tenant by … Bellwoar is clearly an individual eligible to have commenced a voluntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy case under § 109 of the Bankruptcy Code. The thrust of the instant challenge to Mrs.

Estate of Harris v. Dawley (In Re Dawley)

312 B.R. 765 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 16, 2004

Clearly the corporate accounts receivable were not held in trust for the shareholders but rather were to be collected for use as Coin Call’s operating funds. … However, clearly Defendant knew, but did not disclose, that the sale proceeds had been sent to him individually until Judith was added as payee on the checks.

In Re Haskell Dawes, Inc.

199 B.R. 867 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 28, 1996

The retention of control over the management and profits of the reorganized company is clearly of value to the Woodruffs. It is through this control that Mr. … Whether HD Acquisition would be able to lease the building otherwise is not established in the record.

Grant v. Superior Moving & Storage, Inc. (In Re Grant)

182 B.R. 709 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 19, 1995

Superior’s relationship was with PHA pursuant to the Superior-PHA Contract. 4 PHA, not Superior, established the termination of that bailment after 30 days. … Under that definition PHA does not qualify as a merchant either. 8 . "Deal" has been defined as follows: "To traffic, to transact business; to bargain or trade.

In Re Windsor Communications Group, Inc.

54 B.R. 504 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 31, 1985

Its purpose can only be to clearly show that it means for official committees to be reimbursed for their expenses on a basis other than a showing of “substantial contribution to the case”, for if that is all it meant to do … Rather this reading establishes a two tier test: one for official committees and another for volunteer committees in terms of qualifying for reimbursement.

Van Huderson v. U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (In Re Van Huderson)

96 B.R. 541 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 16, 1989

However, the letter invited the Debtor to schedule a conference and attempt to provide information to further establish his eligibility for'an assignment. See id. … Davis’ medical problems was provided, further embellished by the statement that “pregnancy alone, its expenses, or wage lost on *547 account thereof [are not] qualifying circumstances for assignment.” 3.

Meyer v. Argent Mortgage Co. (In Re Meyer)

379 B.R. 529 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 29, 2007

Violations of those two laws, Plaintiffs correctly point out, establish liability under UDAP. … Accordingly, they cannot establish UDAP liability on that basis.

In Re Andrews

78 B.R. 420 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 1, 1987

The narrow definition given to the term in interpreting § 109(e) and § 303(b)(1) may be attributable to policies, respectively, of restricting the use of the liberal benefits of Chapter 13 to only those clearly qualified … These claims do establish that the effective time at which the claim is estimated is the date of the filing of the objection thereto, Baldwin United, 55 B.R. at 895, which, here, would be April 21, 1987.

In Re Wynnefield Manor Associates, L.P.

163 B.R. 53 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 14, 1993

However, we have found that two of those objections will- clearly prevent confirmation and, therefore, we will only address those two issues. C. DISCUSSION 1. … However, the other three factors have not been established. The use to which the funds will be put, as is noted above, is not clear. Therefore, the need for the funds is equally murky and insufficiently established.

In Re Galbraith

15 B.R. 549 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 24, 1981

Because the Commonwealth is the sole provider of welfare assistance and because it has traditionally provided that governmental service, we conclude that the administration of the Commonwealth’s welfare program does qualify … The Bankruptcy Clause provides that Congress shall have the power “To establish. . .uniform laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.” U.S. Const, art. I, § 8, cl. 4. 25 .

In Re Souders

75 B.R. 427 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 10, 1987

Edward Carter, a qualified real estate appraiser called by the Movant, valued the premises, as of March 16, 1987, at $70,000.00. … The state court record and the silence of the Movant on this point clearly establishes that no such notice was sent here.

Davenport v. Pennsylvania, Department of Public Welfare (In Re Davenport)

83 B.R. 309 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 8, 1988

Clearly, the criminal restitution obligation is “provided for” by the debtors’ plan. Matter of Gregory . … For example, eligibility to become a debtor under chapter 13 was expanded: no longer were only wage earners qualified to formulate reorganization plans. Reorganization procedures were made inexpensive.

Rowe v. Conners (In Re Rowe)

110 B.R. 712 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 8, 1990

We therefore conclude that the Debtor's receipt of $200 from her son is an acceptable source of “stable and regular” income to qualify the Debtor for Chapter 13 relief. … As the Defendant notes, 11 U.S.C. § 1322 (b)(5), relating to obligations which mature after the plan payments are completed, is clearly inapplicable.

J.B. Van Sciver Co. v. William Cooper Associates, Inc. (In Re J.B. Van Sciver Co.)

73 B.R. 838 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 22, 1987

buyer made good faith effort to secure financing despite absence of formal, written application based on letter sent by bank officer at the time at issue and his unequivocal testimony in court that the buyer would not have qualified … The evidence clearly establishes that Sameloff per *847 sonally joined with Cooper Associates as comaker of the promissory note.

Armstrong v. Nationwide Mortgage Plan/Trust (In Re Armstrong)

288 B.R. 404 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 24, 2003

The Court therefore concludes that Nationwide qualifies as a good faith assignee entitled to the protections of TILA § 1641. … However, because a violation of HIFA qualifies as an unfair method of competition under UDAP, 21 the Court may look to UDAP for a remedy.

Randall v. Bank One National Ass'n (In Re Randall)

358 B.R. 145 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 1, 2006

Pennsylvania rules of procedure establish a discrete category of civil actions in mortgage foreclosure. … Bank One’s motion did not *172 clearly raise the issue and so the plaintiff did not address it in her responsive memorandum.

Keeler v. PRA Receivables Management, LLC (In Re Keeler)

440 B.R. 354 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 4, 2009

Moreover, “[t]he aforementioned proof of claim was/were clearly outside of the applicable statute of limitations, and were therefore legally unenforceable claims.” Id., ¶ 15. … Otherwise, § 108(c)(1) preserves the statute of limitations established under nonbankruptcy law.”).

International Fidelity Insurance v. Marques (In Re Marques)

358 B.R. 188 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 30, 2006

The Prefatory Language clearly establishes a condition precedent, (ie., “if any of the Bonds are executed in connection with a contract which by its terms prohibits the assignment of the contract price”) to the parties’ agreement … He makes the same claim about the City of Wilmington which has the same qualified prohibition in its Standard Specifications for Construction.