Case law

EPIC Aviation, LLC v. Phillips (In Re Phillips)

418 B.R. 445 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 10, 2009

However, $23,500 in payments to attorneys qualifies as a transfer outside the ordinary course of business, in an amount that is clearly material. The Debtor’s business was the charter air business, not litigation. … This statement was clearly false and material. The Plaintiff has established that there are several material omissions in the *464 Debtor’s schedules and statements.

Derrick C. White-Childs

United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 6, 2026

Judicial Immunity “It is well-established that judges enjoy judicial immunity from suits arising out of the performance of their judicial functions.” Brookings v. … Rather, “a judge acts in the clear absence of all jurisdiction ‘only when the matter upon which he acts is clearly outside the subject matter of the court over which he presides.’”

Billing Systems, Inc. v. Nee (In Re Nee)

50 B.R. 268 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 21, 1985

The phrase “while acting in a fiduciary capacity” qualifies the words “fraud or defalcation” and not “embezzlement or larceny.” In re Graziano, 35 B.R. 589 (Bankr.D.N.Y.1983); L. … In the present case, the nondis-chargeability of Nee’s obligation to Billing Systems was clearly established as it arose out of his larceny or embezzlement of funds from the plaintiff.

International Coins & Currency, Inc. v. Barmar Corp. (In Re International Coins & Currency, Inc.)

18 B.R. 335 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Vermont · Mar 15, 1982

The President testified that he had had the damage appraised by another representative of the Debtor who apparently was qualified to testify as to the amount of actual damage sustained. … The evidence establishes that some of the damage was caused maliciously by employees of the Debtor.

In Re Clark

138 B.R. 579 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · Dec 17, 1991

Exhibit three does state clearly that the 1984 tax return was received in “Secondary Sort” on May 23, 1990. … The debtors have failed to establish any proof of a postmark.

Hanes v. Vital Products Co. (In Re Vital Products Co.)

210 B.R. 109 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · May 13, 1997

. § 1-201(37), as codified in Ohio, a transaction qualifies as a security interest and falls within the scope of article 9 where the obligation to pay a stream of rent payments extends for the entire term of the lease and … nominal consideration. 6 The above-quoted language from the Lease clearly shows that the Debtor was provided an opportunity to become owner of the equipment at the end of the lease period by simply making a single payment

In Re Duval Manor Associates

191 B.R. 622 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 30, 1996

Established principals of construction likewise militate against adopting such a statutory interpretation. … An increase of this magnitude is clearly not a fanciful notion if the 17 top floor units are rendered usable.

In Re Harrison

216 B.R. 451 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. · Oct 9, 1997

Clearly, Dr. Martel and the Debtor have complete autonomy to make all business related decisions. … This clearly shows that the amount of the Debtor’s compensation was not fixed, but was subject to Dr. Martel and the Debtor’s discretion.

Lee v. McCardle (In re Peeples)

553 B.R. 892 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Utah · Jul 14, 2016

“It is clearly established that the automatic stay does not apply to non-bankrupt co-defendants of a debtor even if they are in a similar legal or factual nexus with the debtor.” 14 This principle has been followed even when … They don’t need it, and at the same time it would work a hardship on plaintiffs, by giving an unwarranted immunity from suit to solvent co-defendants.

Sisk v. Saugus Bank & Trust Co. (In Re Saugus General Hospital, Inc.)

7 B.R. 347 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 6, 1980

This case is clearly distinguishable from the instant proceeding before this Court. … The Bank has argued that the deposit in question, even if for a special purpose, does not rise to an account immune from set-off.

In Re Pierce

82 B.R. 874 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 10, 1987

If such payment were to qualify as cause, the “Trustee could routinely object to all such plans, and the three-year Chapter 13 plan would become the exception, rather than the rule.” Id. … Clearly, the Memphis Bank decision has no application in the cases before the Court, given the fact that no allegations regarding the nature of any of these debtors’ pre-plan conduct have been raised.

In Re Perez

20 B.R. 879 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York · Jun 9, 1982

confirmation to plans which otherwise satisfy the section 1325 criteria but which propose a diminimis repayment percentage. 4 Such situations often arise because varying proposals within a broad range of circumstances, can qualify … Clearly, the avoidance of the stigma of chapter 7 is unavailable to these debtors.

In Re Turner

147 B.R. 989 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Wyoming · Oct 6, 1992

Reeves, a qualified and independent valuation expert, established by his testimony that in valuing the Sellers’ assets in 1985 based upon earning capacity, a sale price of between $4,726,000 and $8,000,000 would have been … Based upon all of the evidence, debtors have clearly established that no *995 value should be assigned to the Consulting and Noncompete Agreement or to the Mutual Release and Indemnification for tax reporting purposes, and

In re Sturm

483 B.R. 312 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 21, 2012

According to Debtor, these statements show that for her husband, “the overwhelming majority of purchases are clearly for his personal use and not toward any household expense.” (Doc. 76, Main Doc. at pg. 2). … In its Decision, the District Court made it clear: “the Trustee bears the burden of establishing that Mr.

In Re Chicoine

97 B.R. 30 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Montana · Sep 21, 1988

Debtor and Baileys agree that the test to establish an informal Proof of Claim is that a document qualifies as an informal Proof of Claim if it states an explicit demand showing the nature and amount of the claims against … I conclude, as did the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Pizza of Hawaii, supra, and Sambo’s, supra, that such actions by Baileys clearly evidence their intent to hold the estate liable.

Altenberg v. Schiffer (In Re Sally Shops, Inc.)

50 B.R. 264 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 20, 1985

Defendants have failed to meet their burden of establishing a violation of the disciplinary rules. … Weir is uniquely qualified to prosecute the action or actions necessary to assert the debtors’ claims referred to above. Attached hereto, as Exhibit "A”, is a letter dated September 7, 1984 from Mr.

R & R Express, Inc. v. Cawthon (In re Cawthon)

594 B.R. 913 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia · Dec 6, 2018

An ordinary business relationship does not qualify as a technical trust. … Thus, Plaintiff has not identified a specific act Defendant did within a year of filing that would qualify under this section.

Huff v. Brooks (In Re Brooks)

175 B.R. 409 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Alabama · Dec 14, 1994

On its face, the statement shows that Oscar Huff financially qualifies for in forma pauperis (“IFP”) status. II. LAW A. … . § 523 is clearly a core matter. 28 U.S.C. § 157 (b)(2)(I). Entry of orders ancillary to a dischargeability judgment is appropriate.

In Re Hargis

73 B.R. 622 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas · May 22, 1987

Indeed, Section 328(c) provides that the court may entirely deny compensation to an attorney who represents a debtor and is not qualified to do so. … When payments that so clearly fall within the purview of these provisions are only discovered as the result of a challenge by another party, the court is forced into the conclusion that the subject attorney has probably willfully

Burbank v. Capelli (In Re Capelli)

261 B.R. 81 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Connecticut · Apr 17, 2001

The Financial Affidavit complied with that provision and clearly relates to the financial condition of the Defendant. … At trial, the Plaintiff solicited testimony seeking to establish her claim under both subsections (A) and (B).