Case law

In Re Woodstone Ltd. Partnership

133 B.R. 678 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York · Nov 8, 1991

Since the facts herein do hot meet the test established by the Supreme Court, the rule of estoppel established by D’Oench Duhme is not applicable. … The doctrine is part of Texas law and the factual elements a party must establish in order to prevail are clearly set forth in Texas’ case law. See “Moore” Burger Inc. v.

In Re Lowe

380 B.R. 251 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Kansas · Dec 24, 2007

The language in both CBAs clearly states that the parties agree “to establish” the EPP. … that these debtors would qualify as participating or eligible employees having a contingent, future interest under the EPP.

Dagostini v. Wisconsin Department of Revenue (In re Dagostini)

482 B.R. 597 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Oct 11, 2012

However, the debtor’s own testimony established that his 2002 tax return was fraudulent. … The debtor in this case does not qualify as an honest but unfortunate debtor.

In Re Adams

106 B.R. 811 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 20, 1989

The DMV is clearly within the scope of this statutory definition. … The Penn Terra court established that the enforcement of Pennsylvania’s environmental laws was clearly an exercise of the state’s police and regulatory power as provided in 11 U.S.C. § 362 (b)(4).

In Re Compass Marine Corp.

146 B.R. 138 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 28, 1992

We find that the evidence presented established rather clearly that, under the twenty (20)-factor test and considering the four factors added by the Ras-bury courts, the workers whose classifications were in dispute were … In the instant case, the IRS claim is unsecured and, as such, it does not qualify for the Ron Pair exception.

In Re MacKey

209 B.R. 251 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Oklahoma · Jun 4, 1997

The Court stated that it found no authority for the proposition that the property may not qualify for more than one statutory exemption. Id. … Truck driving is clearly a trade or profession. The 1987 Peterbilt Truck is reasonably necessary, convenient or suitable for his trade or profession.

In Re Peregrine Systems, Inc.

319 B.R. 800 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Jan 20, 2005

Bettin failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination. … Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973): the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case by showing that the plaintiff is (a) a member of a protected class; (b) applied for and was qualified for a

Aetna Insurance v. Byrd (In Re Byrd)

15 B.R. 154 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · Nov 2, 1981

In addition to the funds which came into the estate during administration, some money was on hand when Byrd qualified as committee. … Byrd clearly stood in a fiduciary relationship to his father’s estate. He was appointed as his father’s committee.

Pettigrew v. Southern Aluminum Finishing Co. (In Re Amarlite Architectural Products, Inc.)

178 B.R. 904 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia · Mar 1, 1995

A person claiming a lien must bring himself clearly within the law. D.H. Overmyer Warehouse Co. v. W.C. Caye & Co., 116 Ga.App. 128, 129 , 157 S.E.2d 68 (1967); Georgia-Pacific Corporation v. … Both the facts and SAF’s admissions establish that it does not come within the statute. It was not qualified to be a lien claimant and was not capable of perfecting a lien on the disputed assets or their proceeds.

Barclay Ex Rel. Substantively Consolidated Bankruptcy Estates of Midland Euro Exchange, Inc. v. Swiss Finance Corp. (In Re Substantively Consolidated Bankruptcy Estates of Midland Euro Exchange Inc.)

347 B.R. 708 · United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. California · Aug 16, 2006

These decisions are clearly distinguishable from the facts of the Trustee’s case. … However, the question this Court must address is whether the violation qualifies as a “substantial” effect. See Consolidated Gold Fields PLC v.

Indiantown Realty Partners, Ltd. Partnership v. Brown-Harward (In Re Indiantown Realty Partners, Ltd. Partnership)

270 B.R. 532 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. · Dec 4, 2001

During the time in which the Defendants represented these parties, documents prepared by the Defendants on the parties behalf were clearly privileged as to third parties. … One would hardly debate the use of separate attorneys in a divorce action because the interests of each party are clearly in conflict.

In Re Beverage Enterprises, Inc.

225 B.R. 111 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 1998

Next, the Debtor argues that the Union’s claim does not qualify as a § 503(b)(1)(A) administrative expense because WARN Act “back pay” liability is not based on services rendered. … Severance pay in this category is granted priority as an administrative expense only to the extent that it is earned during the period of time the employer is in bankruptcy. *116 It is therefore clearly established by the

PNC Bank, N.A. v. Rodriguez (In re Rodriguez)

184 B.R. 467 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 2, 1995

Rodriguez’s income been stated accurately, based upon their actual 1993 income as reflected in their tax return, they would have qualified for the loan. … This clearly qualifies as a material falsity and a substantial untruth. 4 In In re Cohn, 54 F.3d 1108 (3d Cir.1995), the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held the debtor responsible for false informa *472 tion provided

Genova v. Gottlieb (In Re Orange County Sanitation, Inc.)

221 B.R. 323 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Sep 16, 1997

The uncontroverted documents submitted on these motions establish that either Gottlieb or the Mongellis were the initial transferees. … He argues that a similar notation on Gottlieb’s escrow-account check “put the IRS on notice that the transfer being made was clearly avoidable....” (Trustee’s Memo, of Law at 12.)

Nelson v. Cavalier Rural Electric Co-Operative of Langdon (In Re Axvig)

68 B.R. 910 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. North Dakota · Jan 14, 1987

During the past several years the cooperative has paid cash in retirement of its capital credits only to patrons who have qualified by reason of death. … Although bankruptcy and state laws clearly support this court’s position, equity also favors the cooperatives and other patrons.

Robinson v. U.S. Small Business Administration (In Re Catamount Dyers, Inc.)

50 B.R. 788 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Vermont · Apr 23, 1985

He is still the duly qualified and acting trustee. Neither Small Business Administration nor Clark Equipment Credit Corporation has ever filed any continuation statements. … However, this case is clearly distinguishable in that it involved a statutory tax lien which was not perfected as of the date of the filing of the Petition for Relief.

Chartwell Litigation Trust Ex Rel. Chartwell Litigation v. Addus Healthcare, Inc. (In Re Med Diversified, Inc.)

334 B.R. 89 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York · Nov 14, 2005

Peltz is not qualified as a business valuator. 13 Mr. … Testimony revealed that in computing a multiple based on cash flow, the established method used by Mr. Peltz’s only source of authority for using such a method, Dr.

Herring v. United States Internal Revenue Service (In Re Herring)

224 B.R. 858 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia · Jul 31, 1997

The movant has the burden to establish that no such factual issue exists, id. at 324 , 106 S.Ct. 2548 , and the Court will read the opposing party’s pleadings liberally. Anderson v. … Clearly, Section 522 contemplates that exempt property is placed beyond the reach of creditors “unless the case is dismissed.”

Tavenner v. Smoot (In Re Smoot)

265 B.R. 128 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · Sep 30, 1999

This presumption establishes the trustee’s prima facie case and shifts the burden of proof to establish the absence of fraudulent intent to the debtor. See id., at 61. … The Bankruptcy Code grants the debtor the power to exempt recovered property, albeit in a carefully qualified form.

Sovereign Bank, F.S.B. v. Finnegan (In Re Finnegan)

358 B.R. 644 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 30, 2006

Section 506(a)(2) clearly provides that the date the petition is filed is the point at which a court should set the value of a secured *649 claim. … court will examine the evidence offered by the parties to establish the value of the vehicle.