Case law

Hopkins v. United States (In Re Hopkins)

133 B.R. 102 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 10, 1991

Peregoy that a trust account was established by Mr. Hopkins as a means to hide transactions. Mr. … Clearly, she was a wife who not only actively participated in, but also enjoyed the fruits of the crime perpetrated by her husband. Kirk, 98 B.R. at 58 .

Sun Bank/South Florida, N.A. v. Lugo (In re Lugo)

140 B.R. 917 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. · Jun 2, 1992

The plain language of the Order, and of the underlying statutory scheme, clearly indicate that the intent of both was to relieve a guardian, like Debtor, from responsibility for estate funds placed into a designated depository … We will assume for the sake of this discussion, although it has not been established judicially, that Debtor also was liable.

Aaron v. Rosepink (In Re Global Grounds Greenery, LLC)

405 B.R. 659 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Arizona · Apr 15, 2009

No Arizona case law establishes that receivers are vested with creditor causes of action. … Second: Those powers and duties clearly implied from the order or orders of court appointing the receiver and which are clearly and reasonably necessary to the carrying out of such order or orders.

Yoppolo v. Household Realty Corp. (In Re Winland)

276 B.R. 773 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 9, 2001

Winland, could recall very clearly the events leading up to the Debtors’ April 1997 refinancing. … This Rule, however, is qualified by other rules of evidence which permit a duplicate or other secondary evidence to be introduced to prove the content of a writing.

In re Etnire

568 B.R. 80 · United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. Illinois · May 23, 2017

Determining that the debt fell within the definition as being “in the nature of assistance provided by a governmental unit” to a child of the debtor and that it related to support, the court concluded that the state’s claim clearly … qualified as a domestic support obligation.

Hopkins v. First NLC Financial Services, LLC (In Re Hopkins)

372 B.R. 734 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 22, 2007

As explained by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, a trial court may not grant a motion for judgment on the pleadings pnless the movant clearly establishes there are no material issues of fact, and he is entitled to judgment … The plaintiff has clearly put CHC on notice of the nature of his claims. Accordingly, CHC’s motion for a more definite statement is denied. Garza v.

Hammermeister v. Hammermeister (Hammermeister)

270 B.R. 863 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 17, 2001

The Debtor qualified for an earned income tax credit in 1997 and again in 2000. … As in Hodge, the record made at trial here fails to establish clearly and unequivocally that the parties intended to create a support obligation.

In Re Smith

100 B.R. 289 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. South Carolina · Apr 13, 1988

II Commodore has met its burden of establishing an informal proof of claim. An informal proof of claim in the form of a letter, if timely, may qualify for formal amendment after the bar date. Fyne v. … But this cut-off time does not apply to claims clearly and sufficiently asserted within the filing period set.

Matter of Layton

116 B.R. 995 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Iowa · May 29, 1990

That conclusion clearly rested on the specific facts of the case. … In the other decision, the debtor made voluntary contributions to an ERISA qualified plan even after leaving his employment with the public university employer.

Vangelisti v. Kerbaugh (In Re Kerbaugh)

159 B.R. 862 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. North Dakota · Sep 23, 1993

Accordingly, the business plan clearly qualifies as a statement made in writing respecting the debtor’s financial condition. 3. … In this case, the evidence clearly established that business plan the financial statement submitted by Kerbaugh in conjunction with the business plan played a substantial role in Vangelisti’s decision to make the loan.

In Re Bennett

395 B.R. 781 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 8, 2008

The benefits specifically provided by the Florida constitutional Homestead Exemption are clearly defined under Florida law. 1. … As the record clearly shows, these Debtors do not claim the Homestead Exemption on their Schedule Cs.

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

325 B.R. 69 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Mar 31, 2005

It is therefore particularly pertinent that the Debtor here established that her mother qualifies as a legal dependent as defined by the IRS and that the Debtor has in fact taken her mother as a dependent on her tax returns … Congress clearly intended to “make the discharge of student loans more difficult than that of other nonexcepted debt.” Brunner 831 F.2d at 396 . However, Congress did not deny all recourse to a debtor.

Andrews v. Hall (In Re Andrews)

153 B.R. 159 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · Mar 31, 1993

. § 541 (a)(6). 3 The fundamental question is whether adhering to a non-competition obligation qualifies as “services performed” under 11 U.S.C. § 541 (a)(6). … Breach of that duty would clearly constitute a material breach of the agreement. Lubrizol, 756 F.2d at 1045-46 (emphasis added).

In Re Alstad

265 B.R. 488 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 31, 2001

Clearly if the goodwill did not exist, the covenant not to compete would be unnecessary. … Additionally, the territorial restriction is valid since it covers an area where Terminix intends to establish its business.

Madison Investment Trust v. Covenant at South Hills, Inc. (In Re Covenant at South Hills, Inc.)

410 B.R. 426 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 3, 2009

The documents they signed clearly establish that Credit Bank recognized that no other liens could be placed on the collateral unless those liens secured Debtor’s obligation to the Trustee. … As noted, supra, in text, it has been determined that Madison may credit bid at a sale of the real property up to the amount of its claim, if it meets the financial conditions to qualify, despite its lack of a separate lien

Nelson v. Miller (In Re Miller)

268 B.R. 826 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Oct 16, 2001

Why shouldn’t this be enough to qualify the debtor’s spouse as a creditor holding a contingent claim? … Clearly, neither of these tasks can be accomplished until the state court has actually entered its order.

Flores v. U.S. Dept. of Education (In Re Flores)

282 B.R. 847 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 2, 2002

the Debtor may feel a moral obligation to support her son, it will be assumed (and no evidence was introduced to the contrary) that the Debtor’s son, being over the age of minority, is emancipated, and therefore does not qualify … Nevertheless, such an amount is clearly not enough to pay her student loan obligation as according to the Defendant’s owns records, a payment of approximately Two Hundred Fifty-nine dollars ($259.00) would still, after 291

Walsh v. Helsel (In Re Helsel)

326 B.R. 591 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 30, 2005

To establish the requisite fraud for purposes of § 727(d)(2), the trustee must establish that debtors knowingly intended to defraud him or engaged in such reckless conduct as would justify a finding of fraud. … Properly exempted property lies beyond the grasp of creditors and generally is immunized against liability for pre-petition debts. Owen v.

In Re Haynes

283 B.R. 147 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Sep 19, 2002

The prerequisites detailed in the prior section clearly require that the entry be made under a claim of right pursuant to colorable title. … Namely, the Debtor failed to establish that she possessed the requisite hostility. 2. Even if the Debtor had gained ownership by way of adverse possession the result would be the same.

SCI Direct LLC v. McDermott, United States Trustee for Region 9

United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 22, 2020

Congress Intended the 2017 Amendment to Apply to New or Pending Chapter 11 Cases Where Qualifying Disbursements Were Made on or After January 1, 2018 Plaintiffs first argue that Congress did not clearly express … The Reorganized Debtors maintain that the UST fees imposed by the Amendment cannot qualify as a reasonable user fee because they are clearly not designed to reimburse the government for