Case law

Neuger v. United States (In Re Tenna Corp.)

43 B.R. 140 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 14, 1984

The government’s claim for taxes in this proceeding qualifies for priority status under Section 507(a)(6). There are other government claims entitled to like priority. … The payment in question, therefore, clearly enabled the *143 government to receive more than it would receive in the distribution of this estate.

Croteau v. Croteau (In Re Croteau)

246 B.R. 254 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · Mar 15, 2000

In Virginia, the trial courts of general jurisdiction are the circuit courts established in each county and certain cities. Va.Code Ann. § 17.1-500 and 17.1-513. … Such a definition is clearly broad enough to embrace a state tribunal, whether administrative or judicial, having authority to make and enforce determinations of child support.

Matter of Curtis

44 B.R. 416 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Mississippi · Oct 10, 1984

The Trustee has proposed that the truck-tractor be sold following the solicitation of sealed bids, although the value of the vehicle has not been conclusively established in a judicial proceeding. II. … In this case, the granting of the security interest, compared to a lien created by operation of law or the fixing of a judicial lien, is clearly to be considered a voluntary transfer.

In Re City of Harrisburg, Pa

465 B.R. 744 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 5, 2011

The burden of establishing eligibility is on the debtor. … It is well established that a law should not be struck down “unless it clearly, palpably and plainly violates the Constitution; all doubts are to be resolved in favor of a finding of constitutionality.” Commonwealth v.

Cooper v. Centar Investments (Asia) Ltd. (In Re Trigem America Corp.)

431 B.R. 855 · United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. California · Jun 8, 2010

Therefore, such voidable transfers could not qualify as settlement payments of the kind that would qualify for § 546(g) protection. … Concerning the $250,000 however, this was clearly TGA’s money and the challenged transfers were clearly made while the debtor was insolvent.

Tetterton v. Ocwen Federal Bank (In Re Tetterton)

379 B.R. 595 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. North Carolina · Dec 13, 2007

A loan may qualify as a “high-cost home loan” under N.C. … The document clearly states that Ocwen is an assignee only with respect to the loan’s servicing rights.

In Re Johnson

357 B.R. 136 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California · Nov 25, 2006

Thus, the transfer of the Debt Amount is clearly avoidable. B. IS BESTWORTH ENTITLED TO RETAIN THE DEBT AMOUNT PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 548 (c)? … CAN BESTWORTH ESTABLISH A DEFENSE UNDER 11 U.S.C. § 550 (b)(1)?

In Re Asbridge

66 B.R. 894 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. North Dakota · Oct 15, 1986

Testimony from several witnesses clearly establishes that the farm economy in the Debtor’s vicinity is very weak. … Moreover, without an established crop base and assurances that the property could be broken, and that it would qualify for government payments, its rental value would be further reduced.

In re Cantu

553 B.R. 565 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · Jul 14, 2016

With Section 541, Congress established a general definition for bankruptcy estates. With Section 1306, it then expanded on that definition specifically for purposes of Chapter 13 cases. … This view however, simply reads the exclusion of the hanging paragraph of Section 541(b)(7) (“any amount ... shall not constitute disposable income as defined in section 1325(b)(2)”), *577 which is clearly referring to the

Phillippy v. Corkscrew Woodlands Associates, Inc. (In Re Phillippy)

178 B.R. 67 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 7, 1994

Such assessments will be established and collected as hereinafter pro *69 vided. … The question becomes whether the finding that the lien is not effective until recording in the proper county office is tantamount to the “legal proceeding” necessary in order the qualify as a judicial lien under 11 U.S.C.

In Re Zamora

274 B.R. 268 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Texas · Jan 3, 2002

Cir.2001) (claims arising under Federal Torts Claims Act are assignable and waiver of sovereign immunity applies equally in favor of the assignee of such claims); National Enterprises, Inc. v. … To accomplish such assignments, however, any assignment to be effective must be in writing, must clearly state the amount of money being disbursed, must clearly disclose that the disbursement is for attorneys’ fees for post-conversion

Burks v. Bailey (In re Bailey)

499 B.R. 873 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Idaho · Aug 23, 2013

In the case at bar, Bailey clearly intended to bolster his own business. … To qualify as an RIA, a firm must meet certain requirements, including having a qualifying officer with certain licenses. To qualify as an IAR, a person must be employed by or otherwise associated with an RIA. .

In Re Dow Corning Corp.

237 B.R. 364 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · Jul 23, 1999

Once in the Settlement Facility, claimants would have the opportunity to qualify for a number of different settlement levels. … Orgill’s ultimate testimony would be that $400 million will prove clearly insufficient to satisfy all claims against the Litigation Facility.

Hamilton v. Fisher (In re Fisher)

486 B.R. 200 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Kansas · Jan 22, 2013

that both tracts of property qualify as a homestead. … Fisher also indicated on his petition that his county of residence was Shawnee, which was clearly incorrect as the only two possible addresses for him are the property in Arma, Kansas, which is in Crawford County, and the

Ultrasonics, Inc. v. Eisberg (In Re Ultrasonics, Inc.)

269 B.R. 856 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Idaho · Nov 6, 2001

The evidence before the Court establishes that the Moorpark address is not the Defendant’s “dwelling house or usual place of abode.” … The Moorpark address, whether Went-zel’s residence address or not, is clearly one that Defendant at times used in his business affairs.

In Re Dilley

125 B.R. 189 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 11, 1991

But even if the Debtor’s efforts to extend his fourteen month enjoyment of bankruptcy protections free of Court control without evidence of feasibility or good faith were immune from constraint under section 349(a), it appears … Based on these considerations the Court has decided to qualify Debtor’s dismissal of his case appropriately. Although section 349(a) appears to assume a res judicata effect, see 2 L.

Davis v. Kindrick (In Re Kindrick)

213 B.R. 504 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 18, 1997

Under the plain reading of the statute, the phrase “while acting in a fiduciary capacity” clearly qualifies the words “fraud or defalcation,” and not “embezzlement” or “larceny,” so that debts resulting from embezzlement … The purchase of the mobile home was clearly done to benefit both parties.

Knight v. Eppard (In re Eppard)

502 B.R. 458 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Virginia · Nov 14, 2012

Courts faced with *465 this quandary have attempted to solve the issue by allowing state of mind to be established through circumstantial evidence. Id. see also Beckett v. … Absent waiver by the United States of its sovereign immunity, neither this court nor the state court could enter an order that has the effect of exercising control over a tax refund not yet in the hands of a taxpayer; or

Eder v. Queen City Grain, Inc. (In Re Queen City Grain, Inc.)

51 B.R. 722 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 25, 1985

Clearly the drafters of this statute had a very limited meaning in mind for good faith. … That is, for purposes of § 550(b)(1), the legislative intent was limited to closing the door on attempts to immunize a questionable transaction through involvement of a third party.

In Re Ralar Distributors, Inc.

166 B.R. 3 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 28, 1994

Because section 506(a) determines the amount of a claim, this reference is clearly not to the value of the collateral. That value is the subject of subsection (b) where the creditor is oversecured. … Compare In re 360 Inns, Ltd., 76 B.R. 573, 579 (Bankr.N.D.Tex.1987) (authorized postpetition loan qualifies for section 507(b) priority).