Case law

Bank One, Portsmouth, N.A. v. Dettwiller (In Re Dettwiller)

156 B.R. 540 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 1, 1993

Kubota, however, argues that the present record is sufficient to establish that the sale was not in the ordinary course of business. It says that this record establishes that Charles B. … The parameters of good faith are not clearly delineated by the case law. See Martin Marietta Corp. v. N.J.

In Re Jones

55 B.R. 462 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Minnesota · Nov 5, 1985

It is a generally accepted rule that Congress is presumed to have used statutory terms in their judicially established meaning. United States v. Merriam, 263 U.S. 179 , 44 S.Ct. 69 , 68 L.Ed. 240 (1923). … I think this is clearly appropriate, but it falls short of providing a workable standard to be applied under section 1325.

Fuller v. U.S. Department of Education (In Re Fuller)

296 B.R. 813 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California · Mar 13, 2003

Clearly, the Debtor could not pay these loans in full within their terms by paying $785 per month. … The Debtor clearly had the ability to make some payments on the student loans during the last five years.

In Re Flynn

238 B.R. 742 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Aug 18, 1999

Thus, the sole question to the Court becomes whether Pamela Smith’s cause of action against the Debtor, in conjuncture with her prejudgment garnishment order, would qualify for purposes of § 522(c)(2) as “a debt secured by … Finally, the legislative history of § 101(37) states that the definition of a “lien” includes “judicial liens,” 5 and case law addressing the issue has clearly held that “judicial liens” encompass prejudgment attachment and

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Courson (In Re Courson)

409 B.R. 516 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Washington · Jun 24, 2009

This definition clearly applies to Buxton, “a person having an interest ... in the collateral, whether or not the person is an obligor.” … Therefore those checks do not qualify as “proceeds” of Wells Fargo’s collateral under R.C.W. 62A.9A-102(64)(E).

Grant, Konvalinka & Harrison, P.C. v. Still (In re McKenzie)

471 B.R. 884 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Tennessee · Mar 30, 2012

It argued that “if McKenzie suffered a legally cognizable injury resulting from the events described in the complaint as occurring on December 10, 2008, clearly McKenzie either knew, or should have known, the facts sufficient … These facts establish core jurisdiction based on the authority cited above.” Id. at *36 .

In Re Lambert

43 B.R. 913 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Utah · Oct 22, 1984

A minority of courts hold that only those disputed debts that are clearly noncontin-gent and liquidated are to be counted. … But clearly this conclusion is wrong.

In Re Magic Circle Energy Corp.

64 B.R. 269 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Aug 19, 1986

. § 547 . 2 Assuming, without deciding, that the payments in question are preferential in nature, we address the sole issue before us: whether or not the subject payments are immunized from application of § 547 by way of … O’Connor, the president of Magic Circle, at a Rule 2004 examination conducted by Hughes in connection with this matter. 4 Hughes urges that these selected portions clearly indicate that the subject transfers were within the

Shellem v. Koons (In Re Koons)

206 B.R. 768 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 1997

Moreover, § 523(a)(15) is not the most clearly worded section. … The detrimental consequences to the Plaintiff are a very doubtful contingent liability on the Mortgage and a liability on the Account which, while not as unlikely to ripen as the Mortgage debt, is not clearly established.

Hunter v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (In re Phillips)

41 B.R. 143 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 6, 1984

Hunter was then appointed and has continued to be the duly qualified and acting trustee of this estate. Bobbie Jo Phillips is the cousin of Defendant, Shirley Ann Coulter. … But the presumption is a rebuttable one, and it may be both established and rebutted by parol evidence. (footnotes omitted) 53 Ohio Jur.2d Trusts § 103 at 602.

Sokolowski v. BankBoston (In Re Sokolowski)

227 B.R. 16 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Connecticut · Jun 29, 1998

To qualify for reinstatement, debtors cannot be in default, except for technical defaults such as bankruptcy clause defaults, and must pay the entire debt in accordance with the contract. … The Boodrow court’s discussion of the options available to a creditor after reinstatement clearly contemplated a period beyond the closing of the debtor’s ease.

In Re Sun Glo Coal Co., Inc.

144 B.R. 58 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Kentucky · Jul 29, 1992

It did not agree with the rest of this paragraph as regards certification, testing, and the determination of senior qualified bidders being in management’s discretion, or with the elimination of temporary job bidding. … The Union rejected this provision, and agreed only to the establishment of a six member committee to review past customs and practices and prepare a recommended summary of continuing practices.

In Re Farmland Industries, Inc.

318 B.R. 159 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Missouri · Dec 14, 2004

Accordingly, the Agreement was not an executory contract, and the claim filed by AUL does not qualify as a timely filed contract rejection claim. B. … On Motion of the Debtor, a bar date of January 10, 2003, was established for the filing of claims.

Chorches v. Jie Xiao (In re Jie Xiao)

592 B.R. 258 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Connecticut · Aug 22, 2018

Xiao's own expert clearly indicated, "a person is not exonerated from material responsibility for his elections and decisions by delegating administration to third parties." … Finally, it is well-established law that a debtor's rights in a claimed exemption are established on the petition date. See William J. Pasquina, P.C. v. Cunningham (In re Cunningham) , 354 B.R. 547 , 553 (D.

Ross-Viking Merchandise Corp. v. American Cyanamid Co. (In Re Ross-Viking Merchandise Corp.)

151 B.R. 71 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Feb 26, 1993

Of this amount, $500.00 was incurred post-petition and is clearly not subject to any setoff. … Only prepetition mutual debts qualify for setoff under 11 U.S.C. § 553 (a). SETTLE ORDER ON NOTICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOREGOING. 1 . § 553. Setoff.

Stone v. Central & Monroe, L.L.C. (In re Mortgages Ltd.)

444 B.R. 585 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Arizona · Feb 15, 2011

There can be no dispute that Mortgages Ltd. qualified as a “construction lender” or a “reputed construction lender” as referred to in this statute. … Because the statute clearly requires estoppel of the subsequent owner in that circumstance, the result must apply equally to anyone who becomes a successor in interest by whatever means.

Hunter v. Dupuis (In Re Dupuis)

265 B.R. 878 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 19, 2001

As stated *883 by the Supreme Court of the United States: these definitions “reflec[t] Congress’ broad ... view of the class of obligations that qualify as a ‘claim’ giving rise to a ‘debt’[.]” … clearly occurred outside the ninety (90) day period preceding the filing of the Debtor’s bankruptcy petition.

In re Castellano

550 B.R. 214 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York · Apr 25, 2016

Mar. 18, 2016) (the “Woolner analysis clearly remains a minority view.”); Taylor v. Caillaud, No. 3:15-CV-00206-GCM, 2015 WL 7738391 , at *4-5, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160984 , at *11-12 (W.D.N.C. Dec. 1, 2015). Law v. … The High Court further noted that § 522 establishes a number of limitations on a debtor’s ability to exempt property based upon a debtor’s pre-petition conduct.

In Re Girdaukas

92 B.R. 373 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Oct 18, 1988

This court holds, as have most other courts facing this issue, that the debtor, as proponent of the plan, has the burden of establishing that the plan has been proposed in good faith. … If there is any substance to the claims made against the debtor, they are clearly nondis-chargeable.

Chesapeake R & D Ltd. Partnership v. North American Communications, Inc. (In Re North American Communications, Inc.)

138 B.R. 175 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 19, 1992

The above facts clearly and convincingly establish that debtor’s present management has grossly mismanaged its affairs and establish that such an appointment would be in the best interest of creditors and of the bankruptcy … Not only does the above clearly and convincingly show gross mismanagement on the part of Paltrow and Herman, it also establishes that appointment of a trustee would be in the best interest of creditors and of the bankruptcy