Case law

In Re Ross

210 B.R. 320 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · May 29, 1997

Generally, a removal from the homestead premises will be taken as an abandonment unless it clearly appears that there was an intention to return and occupy them. Id. (citations omitted). … Under the controlling Illinois authorities a debtor’s actual use of the property in question determines whether it qualifies for the exemption — an inherently fact specific based inquiry.

In Re Quinn

299 B.R. 450 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Michigan · Sep 30, 2003

He also owns an interest in the trust established in connection with the Ford Motor Savings and Stock Investment Plan for Salaried Employees (“Ford SSIP”). … Second, Section 541(a) establishes that all of the debtor’s assets owned as of the date of the debtor’s petition are to be owned by the newly created estate. (a) ...

In Re Scarafiotti

375 B.R. 618 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Colorado · Sep 7, 2007

Clearly, the burden of proof in establishing special circumstances rests with the Debtors. … Thus, at present, retirement plan contributions and repayments do not qualify as an Other Necessary Expense. The Debtors have also made no showing that these expenses qualify as a special circumstance.

In Re Hanks

362 B.R. 494 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Utah · Jan 9, 2007

above-median debtors in accordance with pre-BAPCPA practice. 7 Some either explicitly hold or otherwise suggest that the concept of good faith is a possible determinant of the return to general unsecured creditors. 8 And some establish … But the court's job is to interpret the new statute as clearly written, not to nostalgically preserve the past by seizing on isolated words such as 'good faith’ and ‘projected’ and inflating their meaning beyond justification

In Re Fund Raiser Products Co., Inc.

163 B.R. 744 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 8, 1994

The Court has concluded that the movant, Ruth Segal, has established the validity of a claim against the Debtor secured by the Gift-co stock, and has sustained the Movant’s burden under 11 U.S.C. § 362 (g) of establishing … The 1992 amendments are of little moment to the instant controversy because both before and after the 1992 amendments, a security interest in the Giftco stock could clearly be perfected via possession.

In Re Butler

271 B.R. 807 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Tennessee · Dec 21, 2001

There is, however, nothing in the record establishing that the Debtor’s obligation to the Crawfords had been satisfied. … Again, the court’s December 5, 2001 Order clearly delineates the homestead exemption to which the Debtor is entitled.

In Re Ford

415 B.R. 51 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. New York · Apr 20, 2009

New York first established the homestead exemption in 1850. 11-52 Jack B. Weinstein et al., New York Civil Practice: CPLR P 5206.02. … As evidenced by his testimony, Debtor’s intent is clearly to use both properties as his residence.

In Re Rott

73 B.R. 366 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. North Dakota · Apr 20, 1987

The Debtors meet the 50% requirement and have sustained their burden of establishing eligibility for Chapter 12 relief. 2. … This treatment clearly violates section 506(a).

Rodolakis v. Shadduck (In Re Shadduck)

208 B.R. 1 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · May 6, 1997

That subsection clearly grants avoidance rights only. The Trustee does not seek to avoid a transfer or obligation of the debtor. … Shadduck to establish his exempt portion of such funds, nor does this judgment adjudicate the propriety of such class action. 1 .

In Re Wegrzyn

291 B.R. 2 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · Mar 28, 2003

These classifications do not provide a consistently workable test for identifying benefits qualifying for full or partial exemption. … As stated in Morehead: Some benefits, such as retirement benefits that will continue until death, are clearly permanent.

Martin v. Internal Revenue Service (In re Martin)

508 B.R. 717 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. California · Mar 31, 2014

By that time, the issues were clearly framed in the IRS’s responsive pleading, and there appeared to be few, if any, disputed facts. … The Tax “Debt” Is Not Established by the IRS’s Assessments.

In Re Dyer

381 B.R. 200 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jun 27, 2007

The 180-day period in § 109(h) is clearly stated. It also does not compel an absurd result. At least in theory, this provision serves a rational purpose. … They foresee unscrupulous debtors raising their own failures to qualify for bankruptcy relief to force dismissal of asset cases.

Brendle's Inc. v. Dazey Corp. (In Re Brendle's Inc.)

222 B.R. 770 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 22, 1997

We established two analytical approaches under Rule 60(b) in cases of default: (1) those that involve a blameless party and a blameworthy attorney, and (2) those that involve a blameworthy party. … Heyman, did not qualify for the liberal approach to Rule 60(b) relief and therefore would be required to “show an acceptable reason for his neglect.”

In re Old Carco LLC

593 B.R. 182 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Nov 1, 2018

To establish liability under the AEMLD, the plaintiff must establish that: he suffered injury or damage[ ] to himself or his property by one who sells a product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the plaintiff … The Court distinguished Painter on the basis that Painter was dealing with the question of the TVA's sovereign immunity rather than a private insurance contract, and waivers of sovereign immunity must be unequivocally expressed

In Re LymeCare, Inc.

301 B.R. 662 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 5, 2003

FEHBP is clearly a "governmental plan" excluded from ERISA requirements. B. Preemption. … The cited regulation clearly prohibits suit against the carriers or the carriers' subcontractors in lieu of the OPM.

Rae v. Scarpello (In Re Scarpello)

272 B.R. 691 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 29, 2002

The creditor must establish each of the these elements to support a finding of a false pretense or misrepresentation; failure to establish any one element is determinative of the outcome. … To qualify under § 523(a)(4), a fiduciary relation must have an existence independent of a debtor’s wrongdoing.

In Re Beverage Canners International Corp.

255 B.R. 89 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. · Nov 8, 2000

Section 503(b) of the Code, which sets forth the requirements for a postpetition expense to qualify for an administrative priority, states in part that allowed administrative expenses shall include “the actual, necessary … The issue is, simply stated: What must Nature show to demonstrate “benefit” to the Debtors sufficient to establish an administrative claim under the Agreement.

Citibank, N.A. v. Williams (In Re Williams)

159 B.R. 648 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Rhode Island · Oct 8, 1993

He has qualified as a buyer for Davidge and Company, an investment counselling firm in Washington and a Fleet Bank subsidiary. … Clearly, the requisite intent has been established. For the foregoing reasons, Citibank’s claim under 11 U.S.C. § 727 (a)(2)(A) that Williams be denied a discharge is GRANTED.

Matter of Harvard Industries, Inc.

138 B.R. 10 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Mar 10, 1992

More importantly, the New Hampshire Supreme Court has clearly stated that this statute creates a private cause of action. Bagley v. Controlled Environment Corp., 127 N.H. 556 , 503 A.2d 823 (1986). … Both Harvard and Newmarket have suggested, and the court agrees, that Harvard establish a trust fund for distribution on Newmarket’s claim. IV.

Raridon v. Carlson (In re Carlson)

545 B.R. 229 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 25, 2016

In re Taylor, 737 F.3d 670, 677 (10th Cir.2013) (finding that debt for overpayment of support did not qualify as a domestic support obligation). … Even more telling, relevant Illinois statutes clearly distinguish between a “parent, adoptive parent or adjudicated parent” on the one hand and a “guardian” on the other.