Case law

Roumeliotis v. Johnson & Wales Univ. (In re DeMauro)

586 B.R. 379 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Connecticut · Jun 19, 2018

RELEVANT LAW The principles governing the court's review of a motion for summary judgment are well established. … a court construes two federal statutes-the Bankruptcy Code and the HEA-the court is obligated to read the statutes consistently. " '[W]hen two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly

In Re Weza

2000 BNH 16 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Hampshire · Apr 24, 2000

the exemptions provided by the law of the state where the petition was filed” if the state has “opted out” of the federal exemption scheme); In re Stockburger, 192 B.R. 908, 910 (E.D.Tenn.1996) (“[Section 522(b)(2)(A) ] clearly … Woodward, 62 N.H. 63 (1882) (holding that mere intention to occupy premises as a home at some future time, without actual residence or occupancy, is insufficient to establish a homestead).

In Re Center

2002 BNH 29 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Hampshire · Sep 10, 2002

Section 506(b) establishes a different standard for the allowance of the claims of oversecured creditors. … Once established, the lodestar represents a presumptively reasonable fee. Id.

In Re Hentges

350 B.R. 586 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Sep 26, 2006

The evidence clearly shows [Mr. Hentges’s] untrustworthiness and incompetence in using information he had about the financial affairs of Mrs. … Hentges’s liability on and the amount of the Judgment by Confession is immune from Mr. Hentges’s challenge for three reasons. Without commenting on the merits of Mr.

In Re Bilzerian

258 B.R. 850 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 16, 2001

In December of 1995, Overseas Holding Limited Partnership, a Nevada limited partnership (“OHLP”) was established. … Clearly, the only reason this ease was filed was because of the SEC’s collection efforts.

Strong v. Option One Mortgage Corp.

356 B.R. 121 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 2004

The burden of establishing the unconscionable nature of a contract or contract provision clearly rests upon the party challenging the contract or term. Denlinger, Inc. v. … Clearly, such an offer was designed to profit the lender.

Digital Systems Engineering, Inc. v. Moreno (In Re Moreno)

414 B.R. 485 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Aug 17, 2009

However, granting a motion for summary judgment is clearly an adjudication of the issues in the case — there is no indication that the state court plans to revisit the decision. … To qualify for the larceny exception to discharge, this Court must find that Moreno wrongfully and with fraudulent intent took money from DSE.

Dye v. Communications Ventures III, LP (In re Flashcom, Inc.)

503 B.R. 99 · United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. California · Dec 4, 2013

Once it has been established that a qualified transfer has been made, § 550 provides for recovery against either the initial transferee ... or the entity for whose benefit such transfer was made[.]”) … establish that payment could be recovered from the remaining defendant under § 550.

In Re Metropolitan Hospital

110 B.R. 731 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 14, 1990

Any issues concerning the standing of the bondholders’ committee or the indenture trustee to bring such a suit, the immunity (if any) of the governmental defendants to such suit, see generally Hoffman v. … Clearly, the indentures sought to lien future gross revenues.

In Re ICLNDS Notes Acquisition, LLC

259 B.R. 289 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Feb 16, 2001

In other words, individuals, corporations and partnerships are clearly eligible for relief, but other similar entities are as well. … The Ohio Supreme Court, which has adopted a similar rule, explained its purpose: Litigation must be projected through the courts according to established practice by lawyers who are of high character, skilled in the profession

Argus Management Group v. Chanin Capital Partners, LLC (In re CVEO Corp.)

320 B.R. 258 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Jan 24, 2005

Has Chanin established an ordinary course defense? … The Plaintiff argues that it clearly was not in the ordinary course of the Debtor’s business, which was the manufacture and sale of sneakers.

Kovacs v. United States (In Re Kovacs)

383 B.R. 90 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Sep 11, 2007

However, the amount being demanded by Kovacs in this case—almost $115,000—is clearly exorbitant and unjustified. … (B) Exception if United States establishes that its position was substantially justified.— (i) General rule.

Bertuccio v. California State Contractors License Board (In Re Bertuccio)

414 B.R. 604 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California · Dec 31, 2008

This language from Feature Homes was buried in a footnote and is clearly dicta. … This issue is addressed by Bankruptcy Code § 106(a)(3), which provides: (a) Notwithstanding an assertion of sovereign immunity, sovereign immunity is abrogated as to a governmental unit to *626 the extent set forth in this

In Re PYXSYS Corp.

288 B.R. 309 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 3, 2003

Indeed, there is a well established line of case law granting administrative expense priority for the postpetition storage of estate property. … that case, this Court ruled that postpetition rental receipts should be applied against a lessor’s *319 gross claim, but should not be applied against the cap imposed by § 502(b)(6). 9 Regarding the security deposit, it is clearly

In re Harshbarger

205 B.R. 109 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 19, 1996

The District Court also noted that Debtors failed to establish that the profit sharing plan account loan was a “debt” or that the plan was a “creditor” holding a “claim” in light of the provisions of the loan agreement, enumerated … Such an argument is clearly contrary to 11 U.S.C. § 1325 . While Mrs.

U.S. Companies, Inc. v. Shaffer (In Re Shaffer)

42 B.R. 522 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 31, 1984

This extension period may be established by amending a complaint or pleading under 28 U.S.C. § 1446 , which provides for removal of civil action from state court to the United States district court. *525 In the ease of In … It clearly meets the relationship test because the Debtor and Defendant, Craig Shaffer, is a party to both. In re Tidwell, 4 B.R. 100, 102 (Bankr.N.D.Texas 1980).

Matter of Carver

116 B.R. 985 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Iowa · May 29, 1990

That conclusion clearly rested on the specific facts of the case. … The debtor in the Bartlett case does not have the benefit of any specific exemption statute because her interest is in an ERISA qualified profit-sharing plan.

Celotex Corp. v. AIU Insurance (In Re Celotex Corp.)

251 B.R. 163 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 20, 2000

This language clearly distinguishes an authorization of costs for solely a sanctionable event. … This Court finds that categories of allowable costs will not be limited by 28 U.S.C. § 1920 , so long as the prevailing parties may qualify under another section of Title 11 for the authorization of costs, i.e. expense categories

In Re Mootosammy

387 B.R. 291 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 31, 2008

LWT, as the objecting party, has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the debtors’ exemptions are not properly claimed. Fed. R. … Although statutory provisions certainly can affect an automatic waiver, 8 LWT has failed to show that Section 222.061 qualifies as such a statutory waiver.

Gonzalez v. Anthony (In re Anthony)

538 B.R. 145 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 17, 2015

Conversely, the defendant argues that the entire context of the conversation clearly shows that the plaintiff is not implicated by the defendant but is instead exonerated. … A conspiracy, i.e., an agreement, to commit a tort or other wrong does not qualify. Actions taken against parties other than the claimant do not qualify. Nor does action taken by someone other than the debtor qualify.