Case law

In Re Taylor & Associates, L.P.

191 B.R. 374 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Tennessee · Jan 26, 1996

The court finds that the evidence presented establishes that Taylor & Associates, L.P. is a limited partnership under the laws of the State of Tennessee; therefore, Taylor & Associates, L.P. qualifies as a debtor under the … Despite Dudley Taylor’s explanations and arguments, James Bush, the original petitiomng creditor, has presented evidence to clearly and sufficiently establish that the business of Taylor & Associates, L.P. brought certain

Grubb v. Pittsburgh National Bank (In Re Grubb)

169 B.R. 341 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 25, 1994

This court finds that PNC’s contention that the Debtors’ Chapter 13 Plan qualifies as an informal proof of claim is without merit. … See generally, Pioneer, — U.S.-, 113 S.Ct. 1489 - (1993) (establishing excusable neglect standard for allowance of tardily filed proofs of claim).

Responsible Person of Musicland Holding Corp. v. Best Buy Co. (In Re Musicland Holding Corp.)

398 B.R. 761 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Dec 23, 2008

Yucaipa Capital Fund, 218 B.R. 656, 673-74 (D.R.I.1998)(“The Complaint clearly satisfies the requirements of Rules 8 and 9(b).... … Thus, RCM supports the proposition that the plaintiff may plead the existence of the qualifying creditor generally, and prove the existence of an actual, qualifying creditor at trial.

Williams v. Law Society of Hong Kong

264 B.R. 234 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Connecticut · Jun 28, 2001

This again demonstrated that [Williams] had clearly no intention to pursue his appeals according to the law but had tried to threaten the Board.” (Id.) … Although the position was created and empowered by Hong Kong ordinance, the Commissioner does not have governmental immunity from the jurisdiction of the court: See Ord.

Tri Supply & Equipment, Inc. v. Brady (In Re Brady)

458 B.R. 814 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · May 18, 2011

For purposes of § 523(a)(4), the applicable state law creating a fiduciary relationship must clearly outline the fiduciary duties and identify the trust property; if state law does not clearly and expressly impose trust-like … Tri Supply points the Court to the Construction Trust Statute to *821 establish the existence of an express trust for its benefit.

Matter of Shaffer

8 B.R. 497 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York · Jan 20, 1981

This Court’s prior order clearly falls within this definition. It is clear that the objecting creditors cannot prevail under Federal Rule 60(b). … The trustee is no longer required to file a report on exempt property within fifteen days after he qualifies.

In Re Lyvers

179 B.R. 837 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Kentucky · Mar 17, 1995

Hastings clearly relied on McCubbins in filing her petition and the erroneously filed Motion to Reinstate. In the Blakeman case, the U.S. … The Court also established guidelines for determining what services may be provided by typing services to possible debtors. They are as follows: 1.

Brown v. Salliemae Servicing Corp. (In Re Brown)

227 B.R. 540 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. California · Dec 9, 1998

Brown qualified to perform? Without refutation, at trial Mr. … BAP 1998), the Panel determined that the plain language of Section 523(a)(8) clearly precludes “partial discharge” of a student loan.

First Mortgage Co. of PA. v. McCall (In Re McCall)

25 B.R. 199 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 3, 1982

In weighing this conflicting testimony, we accept the appraisal of the debtor’s expert witness as being more reliable in view of the fact that: (1) the debtor’s witness is a certified and qualified appraiser while the mortgagee … Having already accepted the expert witness’s estimation of the fair market value of the property in question, an analysis of the encumbrances against that property clearly indicates that there is equity therein of at least

Matthews v. Sallie Mae Servicing (In Re Matthews)

324 B.R. 319 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 14, 2004

Carried a step further then, implicit in this requirement is the concept that the debt- or’s distressed state of financial affairs be the result of events which are clearly out of their control; that is, the debtor must establish … Hence, since each prong of the Brunner Test must be met, the Debtor does not qualify for an undue hardship discharge of her student loan debt under 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(8).

In Re Butcher

108 B.R. 634 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Tennessee · Dec 6, 1989

An administrative expense only qualifies to the extent that it was necessary for the preservation of the estate. In re Mishkin, 85 B.R. 18, 21 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1988) (citations omitted). … Clearly, there is nothing in the record establishing that the $31,864.54 which the Association seeks to recover as an administrative expense, represents “actual, necessary costs and expenses of preserving” the two condominium

Looney v. Feldman (In Re Feldman)

242 B.R. 88 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. · Nov 18, 1999

Additionally, those dollar amounts, if they were qualifying “transfers”, are beyond the statute of limitation period set forth in § 727(a)(2) of the Code. … Thusly, Looney failed to establish a basis for denying the Debtor a discharge under § 727(a)(5).

Adams Farms v. James (In re James)

166 B.R. 181 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 8, 1994

Trustee may do so, the holding of Ruhlman is clearly inapposite and no longer applicable. In the alternative, it is the contention of the Plaintiffs that based on F.R.B.P. 3003(b)(1) they have standing. … The disposition of this adversary proceeding shall not be construed as a finding determining the status of these Plaintiffs as creditors qualified to prosecute their respective claims of non-dischargeability under § 523(c

Townsend v. Morequity, Inc. (In Re Townsend)

309 B.R. 179 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 29, 2004

We will discuss those that clearly apply. Factor Number 2 According to Ms. Greco’s testimony, none of her methodologies have been subjected to peer review. Ms. … Greco is not qualified to give expert testimony in the field of forensic or question document analysis.

Michigan State Housing Development Authority v. Lehman Bros. Derivative Products Inc. (In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc.)

502 B.R. 383 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Dec 19, 2013

stayed, avoided, or otherwise limited by operation of any provision of this title or by order of a court or *393 administrative agency in any proceeding under this title.... 11 U.S.C. § 560 (emphasis added). 16 “It is well established … They are words that tend to distance a particular act from that zone, and the greater the distance, the more attenuated the ability to claim any immunity from the ipso facto bar to enforceability.

In Re Hamilton Taft & Co.

176 B.R. 895 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California · Jan 19, 1995

In summary, section 546(f) was intended to supplement rather than narrow section 546(e), and a defendant that qualifies under 546(e) as a stockbroker need not qualify under section 546(f) as a repo participant. *901 D. … The facts asserted by Trustee clearly establish that the instructions were made with at least apparent authority, and that Debtor implicitly ratified the transaction after the fact.

In Re Snider Farms, Inc.

125 B.R. 993 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Mar 8, 1991

Thus, good faith alone does not immunize a party from a civil contempt sanction for noncompliance with a Court order. McLean v. Central State, etc., 762 F.2d 1204 , 1210 (4th Cir.1985). … This the Trustee has clearly shown, and the Court finds the Respondent in civil contempt of this Court for knowingly violating the orders of this court.

Johnson v. Rye (In re Rye)

560 B.R. 724 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Michigan · Nov 18, 2016

Johnson’s, and qualifies as a meritorious defense. They admit receipt of the funds, as Ms. … Johnson considerably in establishing her case — the court is satisfied that setting aside the default will not prejudice the Plaintiff.

In re MF Global Inc.

515 B.R. 434 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Sep 4, 2014

The Customer Agreement clearly and unambiguously limits MFGI’s liability to its customers and does not create a cause of action based on Position Losses like those sought here. … The defendant in that case argued that it could be liable under that clause only for its intentional torts, and that it had immunity from all other claims. Id.

Hovis v. Wiggins (In Re Wiggins)

220 B.R. 262 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. South Carolina · Mar 19, 1998

Wiggins rolled over an ERISA qualified pension as a result of termination of his employment with Miller Brewing Company. … No objection to the exemption claimed in the IRA was made by the Trustee or any other party on or before the deadline established by Bankruptcy Rule 4003(b), which was November 12,1995. 14.