Case law

In Re Ohio Corrugating Co.

115 B.R. 572 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 12, 1990

The Sixth Circuit held that Section 1113 encompasses retiree benefits, and, therefore, it was not necessary for the premiums to qualify as an administrative expense because they were payable under § 1113. … by the Bankruptcy Code, especially with the priority scheme established by § 507 and § 1129(9)(B).

Matter of Milleson

83 B.R. 696 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Nebraska · Mar 8, 1988

“Such a substitute must clearly both compensate for present value and insure the safety of the principal.” … This statement, however, must be qualified by the fifth amendment and by the explicit language of 11 U.S.C. §§ 363 (() and 363(e). Under § 363(0, the debtor may use, sell or lease property under the Chapter 12 plan.

In Re Carley Capital Group

117 B.R. 951 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Feb 8, 1990

Similarly, in Estate of Dunlap, the court had stated that “ ... it is clearly recognized that the agreement for security for future advances must be a present part of the instrument relied upon for such security. … Accordingly, as the trustee failed to qualify as a bona fide purchaser under Wisconsin law, his Section 544(a)(3) motion was denied.

In Re Vitalsigns Homecare, Inc.

396 B.R. 232 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 29, 2008

On July 3, 2008 the Chapter 7 Trustee sought Court approval to establish a procedure to disclose certain information to ABC in order for ABC to conduct due diligence in connection with its anticipated offer to purchase the … Moreover the Court is mindful of the principle of statutory construction that “when two statutes are capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary

U.S. Home Corp. v. Los Prados Community Assoc., Inc. (In re U.S.H. Corp.)

280 B.R. 330 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Jul 12, 2002

In addition, it is well settled that the “bankruptcy court is undoubtedly the best qualified to interpret and enforce its own orders including those providing for discharge and injunction,” In re Texaco, Inc., 182 B.R. 937 … However, not only did the State Court refrain from determining the Debtors’ Bankruptcy Grounds defense to Los Pra-dos’ claims at the Summary Judgment Hearing, 3 the State Court clearly expressed its intention that this Court

Zaida Ivette Otero Lopez v. Department of Treasury of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico through its Secretary, Jesus F. Mendez Rodriguez, and Secretary of Justice, Guillermo Somoza Colombani; Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, through its Secretary of Justice, Guillermo Somoza Colombani

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Puerto Rico · Apr 26, 2013

that the 18 Notice of Intent of Levy was nothing more than a notices of assessment under Section 362(b)(9)(D). 19 The court found that the six notices informing the debtors of the $500 assessment for each return 20 qualified … These 24 notices, along with the accompanying pamphlet, clearly constitute more that a demand for payment.

Cerny v. Old National Bank

United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Mar 21, 2025

P. 12(b)(6) is well established. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). … The note in this case is clearly a negotiable instrument under the Wisconsin Uniform Commercial Code.11 The note contains the Debtors’ written 11 Wis.

Lynn v. Grigsby (In Re White Motor Corp.)

99 B.R. 783 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · May 19, 1989

The plan was established to qualify under ERISA and Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code. (Joint Exh. B). … Clearly, the Committee had no established review procedure and their counsel was unreasonably dilatory in informing Plaintiff the manner in which his claim would be reviewed.

In Re Stephenson

205 B.R. 52 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 10, 1997

The Debtor also fails to qualify for IFP relief because she has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that she lacks access to resources sufficient to pay the filing fee and at the same time provide the necessities … This ease is clearly distinguishable from Fullan . In the present ease, all of the Debt- or’s needs are being provided for by her family.

Brown v. Bank of America (In re Brown)

481 B.R. 351 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 1, 2012

The Debtor neither established this Court’s jurisdiction with respect to such a claim nor did she clearly state a claim pursuant to the Act in her motions. … In addition, to the extent the Debtor asserted that her loan did not qualify as an ’ FHA loan in the first place, the allegation has no relevance to this proceeding.

In Re Jackus

442 B.R. 365 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 14, 2011

Clearly, Mrs. … “Generally speaking, an auction may be sufficient to establish that one has paid ‘value’ for assets of a [debtor].” See In re Abbotts Dairies of Pennsylvania, 788 F.2d 143 , 147 (3d Cir.1986).

Boston Regional Medical Center, Inc. v. Reynolds (In Re Boston Regional Medical Center, Inc.)

298 B.R. 1 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · Aug 14, 2003

As a condition of granting such authority, the Co-Guardians were obligated to establish that the proposed transfers were “in keeping with the ward’s wishes so far as they can be ascertained.” 19 The basis of the present counterclaim … She clearly intended a gift to BRMC, and the restriction was a refinement of the gift, not a diversion.

Seelen v. Melissa Marie Arnette & Wells Fargo Bank N.A. (In re Arnette)

584 B.R. 304 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Mar 23, 2018

The Trustee concedes he would only qualify as a subsequent bona fide purchaser if he did not have constructive or actual notice of the Mortgage. … Though it lacks a legal description, the Mortgage clearly satisfies the statute of frauds. The Mortgage identifies the Property as that "which has the address of 608 Gilbert Street, Eau Claire, Wisconsin."

In re McAllister

510 B.R. 409 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia · Apr 3, 2014

McAllister’s proposed modification is clearly more advantageous to creditors than refusing to approve his modification. D. Exercise of Discretion Mr. … No such immunity exists with regard to non-estate property, but the discharge injunction of § 524(c) protects it from debts that are discharged.

Volpert v. Ellis (In Re Volpert)

177 B.R. 81 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 18, 1995

By design, Congress clearly intended to establish bankruptcy courts as separate jurisdictional entities, “functionally independent” from the district courts. Grewe, 4 F.3d at 304 (relying on S.Rep. … (bankruptcy courts qualify as "courts of the United States” for purposes of awarding fees under 26 U.S.C. § 7430 ); In re Korhumel Indus., Inc., 103 B.R. 917, 920-21 (N.D.Ill.1989) (Duff, J.)

Jersey State Bank v. Isringhausen (In Re Isringhausen)

151 B.R. 203 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Illinois · Mar 3, 1993

Portmann stands only for the principle that the Postal Service, albeit a branch of the federal government, does not have absolute immunity from estoppel. 10 As to suffering a detriment, the third element required under the … Clearly, debtors enter into reaffirmation agreements with creditors, some of whom even are unsecured, based on a range of factors, including the availability of future credit.

In Re Graffy

233 B.R. 894 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · May 10, 1999

Considering the standards established for determining the reasonableness of fees as set forth in Grant v. George Schumann Tire & Battery Co., 908 F.2d 874 (11th Cir.1990); Norman v. … This Court finds either of these two motives would clearly qualify as an "improper purpose” under Rule 9011. 7 .

Speier v. Argent Management, LLC (In re Palmdale Hills Property, LLC)

577 B.R. 858 · United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. California · Nov 27, 2017

The Court does not know whether SCM could establish that its damages exceeded $7 million. … If net enrichment of the defendant cannot be established, the plaintiff has not established unjust enrichment and is not entitled to restitution.

In re World Imports, Ltd.

511 B.R. 738 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 18, 2014

Those dates were within 20 days prior to bankruptcy, and the claims, they argue, would therefore qualify for administrative priority. … That is indeed the case, so long as the state law does contravene an established federal interest. O’Melveny & Myers v.

Joint Apprenticeship Comm. of United Ass'n Local Union No 307 v. Rezendes (In Re Rezendes)

318 B.R. 436 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Feb 5, 2004

Clearly, the Plaintiffs program was intended not as an educational benefit to the Debtor, but rather it was intended to benefit the Plaintiff by assuring that it had a qualified nursing staff on a relatively long-term basis … The existence of the above-designated third class of apprenticeship participants quite clearly establishes that the purpose of the promissory note/agreement used by JATC is not to obtain repayment at a future date, but rather