Case law

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.

In Re Johnson

101 B.R. 307 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · May 9, 1989

This is so because the properties these Debtors seek to retain after confirmation qualify for the homestead exemption available in Florida by virtue of Article X, § 4 of the Fla. … be confirmed for the following reasons: The term “property” includes all property in which the Debtor has a cognizable, legal or equitable interest on the date of the commencement of the case 1 The absolute priority rule clearly

In Re Sanders

69 B.R. 569 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Missouri · Jan 29, 1987

Missouri’s “opt-out” statute clearly contemplates the same treatment for both classes of debtors. … Such plan or contract was established by or under the auspices of an insider that employed such person at the time such person’s rights under such plan or contract arose; b.

DuVoisin v. Anderson (In Re Southern Industrial Banking Corp.)

71 B.R. 351 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Tennessee · Mar 2, 1987

These, and other loans made during the period December 1, 1982, through March 10, 1983, to related parties 21 and Butcher associates totaling some $17,730,464.50, *366 clearly establish the massive looting that was taking … The totality of the proof in this case, however, clearly establishes that for the most part the participants themselves were hopelessly insolvent and unable to repay the funds. 22 As of November 1, 1982, their principal money

In Re Plaza Hotel Corp.

111 B.R. 882 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. California · Mar 21, 1990

A preference would have been established because a debt would have been created. … For three independent reasons, it is apparent that the payment of the retainer did not qualify for treatment as a transfer on delivery of the checks.

Hoffman v. Peoples Bank (In re Cuni)

68 B.R. 664 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Connecticut · Dec 24, 1986

“A state-created lien is not choate until the ‘identity of the lienor, the property subject to the lien, and the amount of the lien are established’.” United States v. … See § 12-420, supra (tax lien not “effective as against ... a qualified encumbrancer”). The State does not contend to the contrary.

Michael Farms, Inc. v. Lundgren (In re Lundgren)

503 B.R. 717 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Dec 17, 2013

The Plaintiff’s claims are based on the alleged dissipation of assets held under a trust established by the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 1930, § 5(c)(4), as amended, 7 U.S.C.A. § 499e(c)(4) (“PACA”). … DISCUSSION Section 499e(c)(2) clearly defines the trust res. The fiduciary duties described above are listed in the regulations. These are sufficiently material duties to qualify the trust as an express statutory trust.

Enron Corp. v. Avenue Special Situations Fund II, LP (In Re Enron Corp.)

340 B.R. 180 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 2006

The Court has found that the Defendants cannot establish all three elements to qualify for the “good faith” defense. … However, Collier on Bankruptcy clearly states Section 502(d) is drawn from [sjection 57g of the 1898 Bankruptcy Act....

Beverly Enterprises v. Eversole (In Re Eversole)

110 B.R. 318 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 6, 1990

Although this was the first purchase-sale transaction between these parties, Debtor and Hill were reputed to be qualified developers and operators of nursing home facilities. … Here, Beverly clearly relied upon Debtor’s false pretenses and representations regarding the intended use of the $100,000 advance.

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

In Re Doyle

209 B.R. 897 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 17, 1997

Bankruptcy Rule 4003(b) establishes the time limits within which a trustee or any creditor may file objections to the list of property claimed exempt. … Clearly, the Bateman and Simon cases are factually distinct, as noted by the Trustee, because the deaths of the insureds there occurred pre-petition, not post-petition as in the matter at bar.

Motors Liquidation Company

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Oct 14, 2025

Foster, 407 U.S. 225, 237 (1972) (“[A] federal law need not expressly authorize an injunction of a state court proceeding in order to qualify as an exception.”). … To pass the bankruptcy gate, a complaint must clearly allege that its causes of action are based solely on New GM’s post- closing wrongful conduct.

IHS of Brunswick, Inc. v. Michigan (In Re First American Health Care of Georgia, Inc.)

219 B.R. 324 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Georgia · Jan 20, 1998

Defendant Michigan moves for summary judgment on three grounds — (1) Michigan has not waived its sovereign immunity; (2) Even if Michigan waived its immunity, Debtors did not properly notify the DCH of the pending bankruptcy … Plaintiffs have established that service was made on various departments of the State of Michigan, but not on the Attorney General of Michigan on behalf of the state generally. (Pis.’

Texas Commerce Bank-San Angelo, N.A. v. Shurley (In Re Shurley)

171 B.R. 769 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Texas · Aug 29, 1994

Because Plaintiffs have been successful in this trial, the first element is established. … Third, while it is true a gratuitous property transfer clearly establishes a settlor, this does not necessarily mean that a non-gratuitous transferor is not a settlor.

In Re Majestic Star Casino, LLC

457 B.R. 327 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Sep 13, 2011

In qualifying Mr. Herman as an expert, the Court found it significant that: a.Mr. … The evidence clearly, precisely and overwhelmingly establishes that Mr. Herman’s opinion as to the true tax value of the Vessels is reliable.

Joshua M. Perry

United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Sep 13, 2019

Fisher, 80 U.S. 335, 351-52 (1871) (“Where there is clearly no jurisdiction over the subject-matter any authority exercised is a usurped authority, and for the exercise of such authority, when the want of jurisdiction … The party seeking absolute immunity bears the burden to establish that such immunity is justified. Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc., 508 U.S. 429, 433 (1993).

Springfield Medical Care Systems, Inc. v. Jovita Carranza

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Vermont · May 8, 2020

If the Defendant is not protected by sovereign immunity, then the Court must next determine whether the Plaintiff has met its burden of establishing that a TRO is warranted based on any of the Plaintiff’s prayers for relief … Brown Rutland, Vermont United States Bankruptcy Judge 6 The Court makes no findings as to whether the Plaintiff qualifies for a PPP loan or whether the Plaintiffs PPP application

Merchants Bank v. Vescio (In Re Vescio)

208 B.R. 122 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Vermont · Apr 28, 1997

The existence of MOU and the status of Bank’s compliance with it are clearly not matters of opinion. … Finally, it is Fed’s “burden to establish the existence and applicability of the privilege,” Walsh v. Chittenden, 799 F.Supp. 405, 407 (D.Vt.1992).

In Re Barnhart

47 B.R. 277 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 12, 1985

which the Simmons Court described as a “comprehensive restatement of the principles underlying the application of the Contracts Clause” first announced in the Gunn and Kearzey cases, not only is the constitutional provision qualified … Clearly, the Simmons Court established that the state has the ability to modify contractual obligations provided that it is consistent with the fair intent of the constitutional limitations of that power.

McCord v. Venus Foods, Inc. (In Re Lan Yik Foods Corp.)

185 B.R. 103 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York · Aug 2, 1995

(In re Fred Hawes Org., Inc.), 957 F.2d 239, 243-245 (6th Cir.1992) (“In using the conjunctive ‘and’ between subsections (B) and (C)—rather than the disjunctive ‘or’—Congress clearly intended to establish separate, discrete … Thus, subsection (c)(2)(A) clearly has been satisfied.