Case law

Seven Springs, Inc. v. Abramson (In Re Seven Springs, Inc.)

148 B.R. 815 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · Nov 20, 1992

However, to complete the circle, in order to participate in the counterclaim, Abramson would first have to establish his partnership interest. … Although Abramson’s cross claim is not a core proceeding I believe it qualifies as a “related to” proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157 (c)(1).

McHale v. Boulder Capital LLC (In Re 1031 Tax Group, LLC)

439 B.R. 47 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Aug 27, 2010

Faced with these well established principles, Boulder argues that they do not attempt to enforce or impose a trust, as is clearly prohibited by law. … Boulder apparently believes that it can establish the existence of countless express trusts without asserting the rights of the beneficiaries. This clearly is not the case.

In Re J.B. Winchells, Inc.

106 B.R. 384 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 13, 1989

‘My power to set aside a previously entered order, although well established, see Wayne United Gas Co. v. … may have relied, or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed.

In Re Srikantia

417 B.R. 505 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 29, 2009

pre-BAPCPA presumption in favor of granting the relief requested by the debtor as a “caution and reminder” for the court to “give the benefit of any doubt to the debt- or and dismiss a case only when a substantial abuse is clearly … It is well established, however, that a discharge in bankruptcy is conditioned on a debtor’s willingness to make some sacrifices. In re Felske, 385 B.R. at 656.

Second Avenue Holdings, LLC v. Latimer (In re Latimer)

489 B.R. 844 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Alabama · Mar 26, 2013

The district court denied the President’s motion to dismiss, but granted him temporary immunity until he left office. … The proponent of a stay bears the burden of establishing its need. Id. at 255, 57 S.Ct. at 166.

Rieth-Riley Construction Co. v. First Security Bank (In Re Williams Bros. Asphalt Paving Co.)

59 B.R. 71 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Michigan · Mar 4, 1986

Therefore, the first element of Ri- *76 eth-Riley’s action — that the transferred property be trust property — has been established. The issue, then, is whether the Bank qualified as a bona fide purchaser. … The Bank clearly gave value for the checks from Williams Brothers.

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....

In Re Hammock

436 B.R. 343 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jul 8, 2010

Therefore, the Bankruptcy Code provides that student loans, which are clearly “debts,” are precluded from “reasonably necessary” expenses under Section 707(b)(2)(A)(ii)(I). … Since the presumption of abuse has been established under Section 707(b)(2) and the Debtor has failed to rebut the presumption, the facts in this case establish abuse under Section 707(b)(1) and the Court declines to consider

In Re Sorrell

286 B.R. 798 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Utah · Nov 6, 2002

The added language clearly precludes the standing trustee from receiving the statutory percentage fee on payments not actually received by the standing trustee. *804 I. … The Court is also convinced that the Debtors have carried their burden to establish that they have reasonably stable and regular income.

In Re Wolniewicz

224 B.R. 302 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. New York · Aug 25, 1998

He contends that the Wolniewiezes clearly lack an ability to pay any meaningful portion of their indebtedness, that they have no excessive income above expenses, that they made no purchases on the eve of their bankruptcy … A fundamental purpose of bankruptcy law is to afford to qualified debtors the opportunity of a fresh start. Bankruptcy, therefore, represents a solution to problems that result from either misfortune or mistake.

Bent v. ABMD Ltd. (In Re ABMD Ltd.)

439 B.R. 475 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 17, 2010

Defendant further asserts that, if the class is certified, the form and manner of notice to the class should be modified from what is proposed by the Plaintiffs to provide a more clearly defined class and to enhance potential … The notice must clearly and concisely state in plain, easily understood language: (i) the nature of the action; (ii) the definition of the class certified; (iii) the class claims, issues, or defenses; (iv) that a class member

In Re Ahn Homecare, LLC

222 B.R. 804 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas · Jun 10, 1998

Aetna Life & Casualty, 903 F.2d 480 , 489 (7th Cir.1990), stated: In this section Congress clearly expressed its intent not to alter the substantive scope of section 405(h). … Further, the entire account reconciliation process established by the Medicare Act and regulations works on an annual basis. Id.

Miller v. Florida Mining & Materials (In Re A.W. & Associates, Inc.)

196 B.R. 900 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Florida · Mar 27, 1996

This court declines to establish such a rule. … The payment date was established pursuant to a new construction job contracted by the Debtor.

Grayson Consulting, Inc. v. Wachovia Securities, LLC (In Re Derivium Capital, LLC)

437 B.R. 798 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. South Carolina · Sep 14, 2010

As support for the argument that the Customer Transfers qualify as recoverable transfers under §§ 544 and 548, Plaintiff primarily relies upon In re Manhattan Inv. … No similar separate account was established for the protection of Wachovia.

Day Care-Sam Furr, LLC v. Ross (In re Ross)

478 B.R. 715 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 11, 2012

He clearly took advantage of their relationship and trust by taking money from Day Care and using it to satisfy his personal debts. … Obviously, Ross’s fraud upon Day Care/McKinnell qualifies as a deceptive act under N.C. Gen.Stat. § 75-1.1.

In Re Mann

201 B.R. 910 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · Oct 11, 1996

The directions for this schedule clearly instruct the debtors to ignore actual payment dates and to “[p]ro-rate any payments ... to show monthly rate.” 9 . The discrepancies brought out in the testimony include: a) Mr. … The debtors contend that the annuity was established through Mrs.

Southard v. Educational Credit Management Corp. (In Re Southard)

337 B.R. 416 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Jan 31, 2006

ECMC asserts that Plaintiffs testimony at trial established that he has unnecessary expenses. … No. 03-1503, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law dated March 15, 2004. • It is this Court’s finding that Plaintiffs loan qualifies for this program. [Def.

In Re Collins

335 B.R. 646 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas · Dec 27, 2005

Thus, the Debtor clearly cannot rebut the presumption under a clear and convincing standard with any evidence that goes to his financial or personal affairs since the filing of his last case. … Indeed, if those were the standards, this Debtor might qualify for an extension of the stay.

In Re Hyde

222 B.R. 214 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Jun 16, 1998

From the beginning it lacked an easily identifiable rationale; in 1789, the words of the Clause were more a slogan than a clearly defined legal rule, and in the preceding four centuries the slogan had stood for at least four … from summons in the hands of the client and retained that immunity in the hands of the attorney.”

In Re Syrtveit

105 B.R. 599 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Montana · Sep 25, 1989

The retirement plans are qualified under § 401(a) of the Internal revenue Code. The three plans are as follows: (1) NTCA Retirement and Security Program. … Quite clearly, the rule contemplates that objections will be raised within 30 days of the meeting of creditors only as to exemptions scheduled before that meeting.