Case law

Jensen v. Montemoino (In re Montemoino)

491 B.R. 580 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 30, 2012

“When only one spouse pursues the bankruptcy route, individual claims against him do not vitiate the immunity of the entireties estate.” … Under Florida law, property that is owned in the tenancy by entireties form is immune from execution by creditors of a single spouse.

In re Smith

549 B.R. 188 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Mississippi · Apr 4, 2016

Seemingly because “current monthly income” is clearly defined in the. Bankruptcy Code, the division among courts lies mostly in the allowance of expenses. … “Current monthly income” is clearly defined in § 101(10A), and “Congress intended the means test to approximate the debtor’s reasonable expenditures on essential items[.]”

Cattafi v. O'Neill (In Re Nuisance Corp.)

17 B.R. 80 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 23, 1981

There can be no question that a trustee qualifies as a “party in interest” and, therefore, permitted to object. See 2 Collier on Bankruptcy, ¶ 502.01 (15th ed. 1979). … The fact that officers and directors and controlling shareholders owe a fiduciary duty to their corporation and its minority shareholders, is well established under New Jersey law; see Eliasberg v.

Warsco v. Schaller Trucking Corp. (In Re R. & L. Cartage & Sons, Inc.)

118 B.R. 646 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Aug 21, 1990

“More harm than good would result from allowing creditors to establish a secured status by parol evidence after they have neglected the simple formality of obtaining a signed writing.” White, 302 N.E.2d at 837 . … Exclusive possession should pass to the creditor and “[t]here should be some line of demarcation that clearly indicates possession is not in the debtor or has changed its previous posture.”

Fleet v. United States Consumer Council, Inc. (In Re Fleet)

76 B.R. 1001 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 1987

Civ.P. 23(b)(3), and establish a schedule for the resolution of these issues. B. … Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 , 94 S.Ct. 2140 , 40 L.Ed.2d 732 (1974), established, the Plaintiffs must bear the cost of this notice.

In re: Vaca Brava Old San Juan, LLC v. Puerto Rico Treasury Department

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Puerto Rico · Oct 27, 2016

In order to eliminate sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, Congress 19 must “unequivocally express its intent to abrogate the immunity … Section 106(a), as amended, clearly abrogates sovereign immunity in relation to 16 violation of the automatic stay and anti-discrimination provision claims.

Barnes v. Dominion Oklahoma Texas Exploration & Production, Inc.

347 B.R. 868 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas · Aug 22, 2006

payment of all ... all royalty ... and other burdens applicable to Non-Consenting Party’s share of production ... 9 As the Tawes memorandum asserts: To be a third party beneficiary of a contract under Texas law, a party must establish … [NJeither this Agreement, nor any term or provision hereof, nor any inclusion by reference, shall be construed as being for the benefit of any party not in signatory hereto. 12 The Texas Supreme Court stated: To qualify as

Bally Total Fitness Corp. v. Contra Costa Retail Center

384 B.R. 566 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California · Feb 20, 2008

. § 362 , or (3) 30 days after a trustee qualifies in a chapter 11 case but not later than 180 days after the order for relief. Fed.R.Bankr.Proc. 9027(a)(2). 2. … Discretionary Abstention as Grounds for Remand As Landlord notes, a seven factor test has been established for determining whether a claim should be remanded to state court as a discretionary matter. See Williams v.

Iannacone v. Internal Revenue Service (In Re Bauer)

318 B.R. 697 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Minnesota · Jan 3, 2005

Bauer (Bauer) was the owner of Individual Retirement Account (IRA) account # KI11036745 established with Kemper Insurance Company. … In this case, Kemper is clearly a conduit as defined by the prevalent and consistent caselaw on the subject.

Rhiel v. OhioHealth Corp. (In Re Hunter)

380 B.R. 753 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 24, 2008

Plaintiffs also claim that the OhioHealth Plan is not a true trust but is merely a *767 “qualified trust” under § 401(f) of the Internal Revenue Code. … Nor does it help VALIC that Separate Account A is a “qualified trust” under § 401(f) of the Internal Revenue Code.

Carmel v. United States (In Re Carmel)

134 B.R. 890 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 20, 1991

A sporadic activity, a hobby or an amusement diversion does not qualify.” Id. 480 U.S. at 35 , 107 S.Ct. at 987 . … To establish liability for the civil fraud penalty, the government must establish (1) a knowing falsehood, (2) the intent to evade tax, and (3) the underpayment of tax.

Montano v. First Light Federal Credit Union (In re Montano)

488 B.R. 695 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 21, 2013

RELEVANT FACTS Plaintiffs have established these facts for class certification purposes: 5 1. … Clearly it imposed incidental burdens, as discovery does on anyone.

In Re Williams

435 B.R. 552 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 18, 2010

The Court first noted that § 706(d) “expressly conditioned [the debtor’s] right to convert on his ability to qualify as a ‘debtor’ under Chapter 13.” Id. at 372, 127 S.Ct. 1105 . … The subsection goes on to provide a non-exclusive list of factors that may establish cause.

Electric MacHinery Enterprises, Inc. v. Hunt Construction Group, Inc. (In Re Electric MacHinery Enterprises, Inc.)

416 B.R. 801 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 28, 2009

The evidence before the Court clearly established that trade stacking occurred on the Project. … However, while a formal proof of claim clearly qualifies as a “claim against the estate,” several courts have considered whether other filings by a creditor may also so qualify.

In Re Lull Corp.

162 B.R. 234 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Minnesota · Dec 30, 1993

Claim for reimbursement The claim is clearly for reimbursement. MSISF concedes as much. … The co-liability does not need to be judicially established. In re Amatex Corp., 110 B.R. 168, 168 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1990). Nor must the liability be contractually established. Baldwin-United, 55 B.R. at 890 .

Knutson v. Price (In Re Price)

410 B.R. 51 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. California · Aug 10, 2009

The grant of in forma pauperis status under § 1915(a) is an essential element to qualifying for payment by the United States for transcripts for the appeal. 2 The BAP’s order does not purport to contemplate that this court … Price reiterating her version of the story in an effort to establish that the findings of fact were clearly erroneous.

In re Landsinger

490 B.R. 827 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Jul 23, 2012

The stipulated facts do not suggest that Allen contributed substantial labor, effort, or other skills to the rental property; therefore, the sole issue is whether the Mortgage Note payments made with marital funds qualify … From the time of the marriage until the mortgage on the home was satisfied, at least a portion, if not all, of the payments came from joint funds, which were clearly marital property. Id.

421 Chestnut Partners, LP v. Aloia (In re Aloia)

496 B.R. 366 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 2013

Nothing in the Bankruptcy Code itself indicates an intention to create immunity during a gap period. … However, as December 2nd fell on a Sunday, Rule 9006(a)(1)(C) established Monday, December 3, 2012, as the filing deadline.

In re Martin-Amirault

115 B.R. 10 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Hampshire · Mar 8, 1990

This method for deciding a dispute involving statutory construction is now the prevailing rule established by the United States Supreme Court. … This debtor is clearly entitled to chapter 7 relief. Indeed, a “person” is defined to include an individual.

Stein v. Zarling (In Re Zarling)

70 B.R. 402 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Feb 20, 1987

He intended to use ULC-22406 as a convenient vehicle to deposit his anticipated profits and to then claim immunity from taxes on the ground that ULC-22406 was a tax exempt organization. … The record in this case clearly establishes that ULC-22406 functions primarily, if not solely, as the alter ego of the debtor. The debtor and ULC-22406 do not really exist and operate apart from each other.