Case law

In Re Atwell

148 B.R. 483 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Kentucky · Jan 5, 1993

The review of this factor is to be made on a case by case determination and is clearly within the sound discretion of the court. … However while this factor may be considered it will clearly not control either the question of whether fees should be awarded or to what amount of fees should be awarded.

Attorneys' Title Insurance Fund, Inc. v. Zecevic (In Re Zecevic)

344 B.R. 572 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 12, 2006

However, under McClellan in the Seventh Circuit any nefarious scheme will qualify, as shown by the foregoing quotation. … In a default situation, each such element must be established at least prima facia.

McMullen Oil Co. v. Crysen Refining, Inc. (In Re McMullen Oil Co.)

251 B.R. 558 · United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. California · Jun 29, 2000

Comerica has the burden of proving that it qualifies for this exception. … This case clearly differs from Pereira v. Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corp.

Keene Corp. v. Coleman (In Re Keene Corp.)

164 B.R. 844 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Mar 3, 1994

These two sections are in pari materia, and provide, clearly and unambiguously, that a debtor is a party in interest who may seek the appointment of an examiner. … The Court need not resolve this split of authority because Keene has failed to demonstrate that it meets the qualifying debt requirement.

In Re Woods

406 B.R. 293 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Apr 3, 2009

The debtor’s proposed plan in In re Ruehle, as confirmed by the court, had included language to the effect that confirmation would constitute a finding of “undue hardship,” thereby qualifying the debt for discharge under … At its most basic level, In re Ruehle may be said to stand on the idea that where bankruptcy law establishes a procedural framework for handling disputes, compliance with that standard should be consulted when evaluating

In Re Mandalay Shores Cooperative Housing Ass'n

22 B.R. 202 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 13, 1982

that in spite of numerous and vigorous, albeit, unsuccessful attempts, first on an administrative level and later in the various courts, it never had a chance to succeed simply because HUD refused to consider MSCHA as a qualified … Since the Court is clearly not “a party in interest,” it may not, on its own motion, order the appointment of a trustee under this Section. In re Gurwitch, 6 BCD 264 (Bkrtcy S.D.Fla.1980).

West Michigan Community Bank v. Wierenga (In Re Wierenga)

431 B.R. 180 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Michigan · Jun 14, 2010

Likewise, the Plaintiffs Affidavit *185 establishes that the materials were adapted for use in the Property. … The removed Improvements are not of the same ilk as furniture, curtains, small appliances or other clearly movable personal property.

In Re Catamount Dyers, Inc.

50 B.R. 790 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Vermont · Jul 12, 1985

Robinson, Esquire, appointed as interim trustee, and he is still the duly qualified and acting trustee. … The trustee, in this case, has clearly brought himself within the purview of this statute since it has been established that the property has no realizable value or benefit to the estate.

In re Petters Co.

499 B.R. 342 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Minnesota · Sep 30, 2013

Clearly, under Scholes’s analysis, the receipt of interest in this specific context does not qualify as value received by a debtor. … Clearly, those facts can vary greatly on a case-by-case basis.

In Re Anderson

463 B.R. 871 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 17, 2011

No Seventh Circuit opinion has addressed whether a child representative can qualify for the domestic support exception. … domestic support obligations’ and nondischargeable under the Bankruptcy Code.”); see also In re Dvorak, 986 F.2d 940, 941 (5th Cir.1993) (holding that legal fees for child’s guardian ad litem in custody proceeding were “clearly

Jarnicki v. Clemons (In Re Clemons)

42 B.R. 796 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 12, 1984

By no stretch of the imagination can it be said that Simpson qualifies as a good faith transferee. He is the father of debtor. … Under these circumstances, clearly Simpson was not a good faith transferee.

Collier v. Hill (In Re Collier)

410 B.R. 464 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Texas · Apr 7, 2009

Thus, even if the evidence establishes the existence of a willful stay violation, a debtor must still establish actual damages, though the damage provisions of § 362(k) are stated in mandatory terms. … This clearly constitutes egregious behavior that simply cannot be tolerated nor excused.

In Re Arcella-Coffman

318 B.R. 463 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Dec 8, 2004

Based upon the Court’s view of applicable law, and the record in this case, the debtor does not qualify for Chapter 13 relief; no further submissions from the parties are necessary. … Clearly, focusing solely on the damage element of a monetary cause of action begs the question, and the definition, of “debt”, both as used in § 101(12) and in § 109(e).

River Oaks Furniture, Inc. v. BDO Seidman (In Re River Oaks Furniture, Inc.)

276 B.R. 507 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Mississippi · Apr 4, 2001

Gary French *532 French was qualified as an expert witness for River Oaks in economics and finance. … This is clearly shown by the fact that ROF began losing money in the 4th quarter of 1994 and never recovered. ROF was clearly undercapitalized as early as 1994 and 1995.

Wiseman v. Wiseman (In Re Wiseman)

351 B.R. 651 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 29, 2006

Noeldner opined that it would not qualify for additional lending and it could not afford to pay $30,000 a year for a new employee or for *657 an individual debt to Heidi. … He also stated that James could not personally afford to pay $30,000 a year and would not qualify for a loan. He stated that James reaffirmed his debt to TCU.

In Re Opelika Manufacturing Corp.

66 B.R. 444 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 16, 1986

If the party seeking relief from the stay does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the debtor lacks equity in the property, the movant is not entitled to the relief requested as it has failed to establish … By stipulation, Dalhart qualified as an expert for the purpose of testifying as to the methods of valuing businesses.

In Re Meyer

355 B.R. 837 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Mexico · Dec 5, 2006

Notably the UST has not submitted to the Court any explicit legislative history or other source (other than the continuing existence of RLCDPA) which demonstrates clearly that Congress specifically intended over-median debtors … See also In re Smihula, 234 B.R. 240, 242 (Bankr.D.R.I.1999) ("This language, which needs no interpretation or construction, requires that as of the petition date the debtor had established a history of charitable giving.

Lawrence Arms Associates v. Shur (In re Shur)

225 B.R. 295 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York · Sep 28, 1998

Brahver fails to establish any basis which qualifies him for special consideration. … The circumstances presented on this motion clearly dictates that the modern anti-marital facts privilege not reach as far as Brahver would have us hold.

In Re Schachter

228 B.R. 359 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 8, 1999

Walrath, then an eminently-qualified practitioner at Jacoby who was appointed to the bankruptcy bench of the District of Delaware, effective September 9,1998. … We therefore conclude rather easily that Lini is not entitled to nunc pro tunc appointment under § 503(b)(3)(B) by application of the clearly-established standards for such appointment in this Circuit.

In re Chatham Parkway Self Storage, LLC

507 B.R. 13 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Georgia · Mar 3, 2014

This clearly would cause any reasonable person to experience an extreme amount of stress, which a layperson might equate with duress. … To establish a claim for economic duress, Debtor must show that the acts or conducts of Ameris were wrongful or illegal. Frame v.