Case law

In Re Delaware River Stevedores, Inc.

147 B.R. 864 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 13, 1992

Also, Judge Gawthrop, possibly qualifying his strong statement of the right and duty of bankruptcy judges to review fee applications sua sponte in In re Rheam of Indiana, Inc., 138 B.R. 325, 330-33 (E.D.Pa.1991) (“Rheam III … This court’s guidelines for requests for reimbursements of costs are clearly set forth in In re Mayflower Associates, 78 B.R. 41, 47-48 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1987).

Scholl v. Scholl (In Re Scholl)

234 B.R. 636 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 4, 1999

Thus, her right did not qualify under the Code definition of claim. … Clearly there are a number of scenarios that may result from the equitable distribution of this property, only some of which could result in the payment of money.

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

97 B.R. 227 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 13, 1989

HUD then decides whether the mortgagor qualifies for an assignment by applying certain stated criteria. … During this forbearing period, the homeowners need not pay more than an established percentage (35%) of net income to HUD, taking into account relevant expenses.

Spencer v. Blanchard (In Re Blanchard)

201 B.R. 108 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 23, 1996

It is well established that, in order to prevail in a claim under § 523(a)(2)(A), the Plaintiffs) must establish: (1) that the debtor made the representation; (2) that at the time the debtor made the representation he knew … Shumate, 504 U.S. 753, 757-60 , 112 S.Ct. 2242, 2246-48 , 119 L.Ed.2d 519 (1992) (ERISA-qualified pension plan falls within § 541(c)(2)). Cf. Kaplan v.

Bryant v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency (In Re Bryant)

72 B.R. 913 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 30, 1987

If not, a discharge will result only if the debtor can establish “unique” and “extraordinary” circumstances which should nevertheless render the debt dischargeable. … We note that none of the Debtors qualify under § 523(a)(8)(A), although we note that, had Bryant delayed until the date of trial of his adversarial proceeding to file his Petition, he would have been able to successfully

Berks Behavioral Health, LLC v. St. Joseph Regional Health Network (In re Berks Behavioral Health, LLC)

464 B.R. 684 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 9, 2012

Where a matter does not qualify as “core” but yet has some nexus with the bankruptcy case, it may nevertheless be heard by the Bankruptcy Court on a preliminary basis: A bankruptcy judge may hear a proceeding that is not … Without belaboring the merits of the question the Court holds simply that no turnover claim exists sufficient to establish core jurisdiction.

Zimmerman v. Frem Corp. (In Re Kenval Marketing Corp.)

69 B.R. 922 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 11, 1987

. § 544 (b)) and if he can establish the other elements necessary under the state statute, he can avoid the debtor’s transfers to the defendant. … I believe that if Congress intended such a result, it would have expressed itself more clearly. See Midatlantic National Bank v.

In Re Utilimax. Com, Inc.

265 B.R. 63 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 24, 2001

Both of these issues, although most clearly the former, appeared to the Court to present threshold questions the prompt disposition of which might be the most efficient and expeditious way in which to resolve the contest … Utilimax expressed doubt that such companies could qualify as the holders of claims against the Debtor.

Morris Black & Sons, Inc. v. 23S23 Construction, Inc. (In Re Carriage House Condominiums L.P.)

415 B.R. 133 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 30, 2009

Indeed, it is “justified only in the exceptional circumstances where resort to state proceedings clearly serves an *144 important countervailing interest.” Muir, supra at 360-861 . … Thus, all five of the elements must be established before a court may abstain from hearing the removed case matters here.

Okan's Foods, Inc. v. Windsor Associates Ltd. Partnership (In Re Okan's Foods, Inc.)

217 B.R. 739 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 1998

any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … The foregoing language clearly refers to the obligations of the Landlord, and any perceived breaches thereof, arising under the Lease.

Applebaum v. Henderson (In Re Henderson)

134 B.R. 147 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 10, 1991

R.: Omission of the information included in this Exhibit does not qualify as a false oath regarding the Debtor’s finances, since the information concerns primarily checks written on the Livery and MRS accounts and other financial … In any event, the discrepancy is so small as to clearly be immaterial.

Johnson-Allen v. Lomas & Nettleton Co. (In Re Johnson-Allen)

67 B.R. 968 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 1986

In In re Hanna, 31 B.R. 424 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1983), Judge Goldhaber established that an objection to a proof of claim based on a TILA violation was in the nature of a claim for recoupment, and was hence not barred by the one-year … Also, here, unlike there, the agreement clearly provides for the fees and costs sought by the creditor. 4 .

Theokary v. Abbatiello

468 B.R. 729 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 10, 2012

This will be established by expert testimony. … This will be established by expert testimony.

In Re Edwards

228 B.R. 573 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 8, 1999

Accordingly, I find that the Debtor has not met his burden of establishing irreparable harm. … There was no second bidder qualified. The Order setting sale procedures requires the successful buyer to close within 30 days after the Sale Order was entered, ie., January 15.

Koken v. Reliance Group Holdings, Inc. (In Re Reliance Group Holdings, Inc.)

273 B.R. 374 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 2002

from state taxation; and (iv) whether the state has immunized itself from responsibility for agency operations. … Clearly, the actions are "related to” the bankruptcy case. 31 . Not all circuits are in agreement on the boundaries of a bankruptcy court’s core jurisdiction.

Panas v. Polonia Savings & Loan Ass'n (In Re Panas)

100 B.R. 734 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 7, 1989

The burden is upon the Debtor to establish that the protection which he proposes to provide to the Mortgagee is adequate to protect its interests. … The Debtor’s proposal to pay in excess of $16,000 certainly would appear adequately qualified to protect a claim in this amount.

In Re Prussia Associates

322 B.R. 572 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 5, 2005

The parties’ appraisers did not offer “expert” opinions on interest rates presently available in the market place, nor were they “qualified” by the parties for that purpose. … If the injunction against Fremont is viewed as a permanent one, it is clearly impermissible.

Lease-A-Fleet, Inc. v. Morse Operations, Inc. (In Re Lease-A-Fleet, Inc.)

141 B.R. 853 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 9, 1992

The payments received by Lauderhill from Lindo therefore qualify as preferential payments under § 547(b) of the Code. … Lauderhill clearly did continue to supply vehicles to the Debtor pre-petition, as well as post-petition.

In Re Rothman

206 B.R. 99 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 10, 1997

The wife has a modest income which would clearly not be *108 sufficient to support herself, not to mention four children in addition. … The instant case is clearly atypical. The Debtor would attribute this “irregularity” to Mozino’s excessive opposition to his efforts.

O'Neill v. Dell (In Re O'Neill)

204 B.R. 881 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 30, 1997

It was agreed that PA. could be eliminated as a party in light of its claim of judicial immunity. See Seminole Tribe of Florida v. … The Debtor’s Schedules establish insolvency.