Case law

Crompton v. Boulevard Mortgage Co. (In Re Crompton)

68 B.R. 831 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 9, 1987

On October 4, 1986, Irving Geller, a qualified real estate broker and appraiser in the City of Philadelphia, prepared a written appraisal for the Mortgagee, in which he valued the premises at $8,000.00. … We have already indicated our basis for concluding that the value of the premises, at the crucial date of confirmation, should be established at $5,000.00.

Carter v. Homesley (In Re Strom)

46 B.R. 144 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. North Carolina · Feb 4, 1985

Strom who was afraid that he would not qualify to assume the Peoples Federal Savings and Loan first deed of trust. … Clearly, the Homesleys would receive more as a result of the transfers than they would receive if the transfers were not made and there was a liquidation under chapter 7.

Case v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA

394 B.R. 469 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Mar 19, 2008

Averhart noted the qualifying language in Harvey (that a party cannot “ordinarily” attack a confirmed plan) and in Chappell (a confirmed plan is controlling “as a general rule”). … Escobedo clearly was dealing with a mandatory provision under § 1322(a). That distinguishes Esco-bedo from these adversary proceedings which deal with § 1322(e) and not § 1322(a).

Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Metro Transportation Co. (In Re Metro Transportation Co.)

64 B.R. 968 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 1986

On August 4, 1986, the Debtor amended its October 12, 1985, self-insurance application so as to request the PUC to review and approve a revised self-insurance plan, contemplating no participation by a qualified insurance … Therefore, we clearly do not conclude that 11 U.S.C. § 362 (a) protects the Debtor from the relief sought by the PUC hereinafter.

In Re Granada, Inc.

88 B.R. 369 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Utah · Jun 24, 1988

365(d)(3) should be paid immediately unless the trustee establishes good cause for withholding the payment.” … Section 507 specifies what types of expenses and claims qualify for priority treatment, and the order of their priority.

MMR Holding Corp. v. C & C Consultants, Inc. (In Re MMR Holding Corp.)

203 B.R. 605 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Louisiana · Dec 20, 1996

Whether the new value extended subsequent to the preference must (for all time, one supposes) remain unpaid for the advance to qualify as a subsequent advance for purposes of offsetting preference liability. … This fact clearly manifests a decision by Aetna to use its business judgment to maintain the prepetition agreement between MMR and C & C.

DeRosa v. Boston Bakery & Italian Food Specialty, Inc. (In Re DeRosa)

98 B.R. 644 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Rhode Island · Mar 29, 1989

That the parties, after a casual meeting in March, 1986, at which they struck up a social relationship, mutually agreed to begin discussions and negotiations regarding the establishment of Mr. … On Franchisee’s request, the personal assistance and counsel of a qualified representative of Franchisor.” 12.

In Re Cram

414 B.R. 674 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Idaho · Apr 24, 2009

Clearly, wages, once received by the debtor, are “received for use” and within the “care, custody and control” of the debtor until they are spent, no matter how they are allocated. Id. … The most significant difference between an IRA and a savings or brokerage account is that non-qualified distributions from IRAs are subject to an additional 10% tax if the distribution is non-qualified.

In Re Las Vegas Monorail Co.

458 B.R. 553 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Nevada · Sep 14, 2011

BAP 2009) (holding that “attorney seeking approval” of fee application pursuant to Section 330 must establish the propriety of “each dollar for each hour above zero”) (citing Mares v. … And neither law firm has asserted any other privilege, including the attorney work-product immunity, with respect to the redacted entries. 7 .

In Re LaPorta

332 B.R. 879 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Minnesota · Oct 27, 2005

The facts that the Debtor has recited do not qualify as “exigent circumstances” under 11 U.S.C. § 109 (h)(3)(I), because they do not make sense. … It is “well-established” that, as a general matter, creditors' liens pass unaffected through bankruptcy proceedings, despite a grant of personal discharge to a debtor.

Federal Realty Investment Trust v. Park (In Re Park)

275 B.R. 253 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · Feb 27, 2002

Peyton was appointed' and has qualified as trustee. … In Virginia, the rule that only a "material” breach of a contract will excuse performance by the other party is well-established. Horton v.

In Re McKinney Ranch Associates

62 B.R. 249 · United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. California · Jun 19, 1986

Applicant did not qualify until recently under this standard. a. … Applicant’s representation of McKinney’s general partners in an adversary proceeding in this bankruptcy case was clearly substantially related to this case.

In re Motors Liquidation Co.

598 B.R. 744 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Mar 22, 2019

Hence, American Axle's contingent right to payment clearly did not "depend[ ] entirely on the fortuity of future occurrences," Elliott , 829 F.3d at 156 , but was instead firmly rooted in the parties' contractual relationship … American Axle's Failure to Timely File a Proof of Claim Does not Qualify as Excusable Neglect.

In Re Nortel Networks Corporation

426 B.R. 84 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Mar 9, 2010

The PPF is a U.K. statutory body established under the U.K. Pensions Act 2004 (the “U.K. Pensions Act”). … It is clearly a pecuniary matter, and, notwithstanding the importance of the financial matter to the private Trustee, under the case law does not qualify as a matter of public safety or welfare. See, e.g., Brock v.

In Re Bennett Funding Group, Inc.

213 B.R. 227 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. New York · Jan 9, 1997

The SEC acknowledges the need for adequate interim compensation to attract highly qualified professionals in cases such as these, although it expresses concern over the amount sought by the Trustee herein at a relatively … Code § 328(a) and also recognizing that Code § 328(a) does not reference employment of a Code § 1104 trustee, the Court finds no rea *233 son to omit such a trustee from the general application of the Knudsen rationale. 5 Clearly

Official Committee Of Unsecured Creditors v. BlockFi Inc.

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 30, 2024

It states, in relevant part, “[n]otwithstanding an assertion of sovereign immunity, sovereign immunity is abrogated as to a governmental unit to the extent set forth in this section with respect to the following: Sections … As noted, it merely seeks a determination of what property in the Debtors’ possession is estate property, and if that property is subject to forfeiture— something clearly within the exclusive jurisdiction of the bankruptcy

Campbell v. Citibank, N.A. (In re Campbell)

547 B.R. 49 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York · Mar 24, 2016

The third provision clearly has a plain meaning. It does not need to be construed broadly to except all loans for educational benefits from discharge. … This is clearly the understanding of Baiocchi that the court in In re Nunez, 527 B.R. 410, 415 (Bankr.D.Or.2015), expressed when it rejected Baioc-chi, finding that an “obligation to repay funds received as an educational

Matter of Armstrong

93 B.R. 197 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Nebraska · Dec 2, 1988

Neither amendment placed a cap upon the amount which could be claimed as exempt or qualified the exemption based upon the source of the funds. … years in an attempt to determine what intent, if any, of the debtor and what action of the debtor is so bad, so much against public policy or so fraudulent as to creditors that a court should determine property which is clearly

Hutton v. Ferguson (In re Hutton)

463 B.R. 819 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Texas · Nov 30, 2011

Furthermore, the court declared that awards for attorneys’ fees “must be granted only to that litigant who qualifies for the benefit through the process of a judicial balancing of the equities.” … Even if the unusual circumstances exception were applicable in this case, Hutton has not established the unusual circumstances necessary for an exception to non-dischargeability.

In Re Howard

65 B.R. 498 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Texas · Sep 8, 1986

The homestead laws of Texas clearly support this argument. The Texas Constitution provides, in pertinent part: Sec. 50. … It is well established that when determining whether the FDIC is subject to a claim or defense, it is federal law that governs the question and not state law. E.g.