Case law

In Re Bryant Universal Roofing, Inc.

218 B.R. 948 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Arizona · Feb 27, 1998

The agreement clearly defines Leased Premises to mean “all of the real property currently leased, occupied and/or used by the Company from Mullis in Phoenix, Arizona and Tucson, Arizona.” … BAP 1989), in which the BAP had concluded “where a lease of nonresidential property is deemed rejected, and the trustee has not paid rent during the period prior to rejection, ‘a lessor must establish its claim for administrative

Discenza v. MacDonald (In Re MacDonald)

50 B.R. 255 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 20, 1985

Since the judgment did not qualify under the terms of question 10 on the debtor’s statement of financial affairs it was not listed there. … The debtor’s failure to list a 1978 Lincoln Mark V as an asset is clearly due to the fact that the debtor does not own the vehicle. It is owned, rather, by Gordon MacDonald Associates, Inc.

Martin v. Landers (In Re Butcher)

43 B.R. 513 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Tennessee · Jun 15, 1984

Essentially, the regulations call for the impregnation of the mare by artificial insemination under the supervision of a qualified veterinarian. … Clearly, the retained security interest constitutes property of the debtor’s estate.

Cedar Rapids Meats, Inc. v. Hager (In Re Cedar Rapids Meats, Inc.)

121 B.R. 562 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Iowa · Nov 20, 1990

In Kon-taratos, the court states that § 9-305 requires a bailee, and therefore the parties must have a proper bailment arrangement to qualify under 9-305. 10 B.R. at 968 . … This Court instead finds that such language even more clearly indicates that the parties intended to create a security agreement and that the Commissioner was attempting to protect its collateral.

Citicorp Homeowners, Inc. v. Willey (In Re Willey)

24 B.R. 369 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · Oct 29, 1982

lien held by the creditor is seen in the well-reasoned opinion of Judge Anderson in In re Hines, id at 48 and 49: To be specific, Bankruptcy Rule 13-302(e)(1) should not be interpreted to invalidate liens, but merely as it establishes … Where a debt qualifies to be discharged under the provisions of Chapter 13, and such a discharge is granted, there no longer exists any debt to support the existence of the lien.

Peterson v. Enhanced Investing Corp. (In Re Lancelot Investors Fund, L.P.)

467 B.R. 643 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 25, 2012

Section 546(e) itself does not limit its safe harbor immunity to payments that are appropriate in all respects, but only to those that do not represent actual fraud. … Courts have held in the context of preferential transfers that transactions of fraudulent enterprises do not qualify for the protection provided by certain statutory defenses.

Bruno v. Mona Lisa at Celebration, LLC (In Re Mona Lisa at Celebration, LLC)

436 B.R. 179 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 5, 2010

As such, plaintiffs have failed to establish the second and third prongs of the Howey test. … Although paragraph 13 of the Original Purchase Agreements also limits the purchaser’s remedies and requires them to waive any claim for specific performance or damages, clearly plaintiffs may still maintain their breach of

Royal American Oil & Gas Co. v. Szafranski (In Re Szafranski)

147 B.R. 976 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Dec 10, 1992

But a bankruptcy court could issue such a qualified discharge only if that court knew of the qualification in time to build it into the discharge. … Issuance of a special qualified or limited discharge by the bankruptcy court was now unnecessary.

DOLA International Corp. v. Bordlemay (In Re DOLA International Corp.)

88 B.R. 950 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Minnesota · Jul 25, 1988

The types of management services were clearly spelled out in the 1984 and 1985 agreements. … The documentation which is part of this record establishes without a doubt that they were not.

Diaz v. Botet (In Re Diaz)

182 B.R. 654 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jun 1, 1995

This is clearly not the intended result of the statute. … Liteky , — U.S. at -, 114 S.Ct. at 1157 (a judge’s ordinary efforts at courtroom, administration, even though short tempered or stern, remain immune).

Estate of Smith v. Marcet (In Re Marcet)

352 B.R. 462 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 26, 2006

A fiduciary relation qualifies under § 523(a)(4) only if it “imposes real duties in advance of the breach----” Marchiando, 13 F.3d at 1116 . … The joint tenancy agreement did not contain any language establishing a declaration of trust, a clearly defined trust res, or an intent to create a trust. (Plaintiff Ex. No. 1; Debtor Ex. No. 3.)

In Re Pelter

64 B.R. 492 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Sep 12, 1986

Whether the agricultural equipment qualifies as exempt property under Okla.Stat. tit. 31, § l.A.5. is not an issue in this case. Debtors assert a exemption claim which First does not contest. … Each state granted the federal government authority to enact uniform laws of bankruptcy: Section 8.[1] The Congress shall have Power [[Image here]] To establish ... uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the

In Re Tyson Metal Products, Inc., Tafco

117 B.R. 181 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 16, 1990

Absent such clearly established intent or other unusual circumstances, the debtor was required to deliver the policies to Mellon to effect an absolute assignment. … This issue is clearly settled as a matter of Pennsylvania law.

Miner v. Beneficial Mortgage Co. of Kansas, Inc. (In Re Miner)

369 B.R. 655 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Kansas · Apr 30, 2007

K.S.A. 16a-2-401(9) clearly distinguishes between consumer loans that are secured by a mortgage and all other consumer loans. … Although this may very well be what the evidence in this case will establish at trial, the Court cannot rule, as a matter of law, in favor of Beneficial on this issue.

In Re Evans

337 B.R. 551 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. North Carolina · Apr 15, 2005

Thus, one must own a farm with an established tobacco quota for 2004 to be eligible for payments as a quota holder. … Clearly, the debtors’ tobacco quota was a valuable and identifiable property right that they owned at the time of filing bankruptcy. Copley v.

Watervliet Paper Co. v. City of Watervliet (In Re Shoreham Paper Co.)

117 B.R. 274 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Michigan · Jul 27, 1990

While acknowledging this obvious similarity between the two statutes, I am not persuaded by the reasoning employed in Parr Meadows to establish the County’s interest in the subject real property. … Feb. 14, 1990 Last day of deferral period for summer tax levies for qualifying taxpayers. Also, last day for payment of 1989 property tax without penalty.

In re Velichko

473 B.R. 64 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Jun 12, 2012

In both cases the law clearly requires turnover.... [and t]he duty arises upon the filing of the bankruptcy petition.”). … In that case, the settlement at issue was so ordered by the court after it was placed on the record of a hearing — and clearly established that the creditor had “agreed to relinquish its recoupment rights in exchange for

Jacobs v. Versa Corp. (In Re Jacobs)

460 B.R. 149 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · Oct 21, 2011

In other words, any communication addressing the status of a single asset or liability qualifies. See Codwell v. … Paramount was a Michigan corporation, and while its only named officer was Yury Jacobs’s wife, Marina Jacobs, 21 Yury Jacobs clearly was the person in control of the corporation.

Blakey v. Pierce (In Re Blakey)

76 B.R. 465 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 16, 1987

The opinion of the Debtor is clearly based on the particular characteristics of the premises, but must also be weighed for bias and absence of expertise. 3. … We can only surmise that she is unbiased or qualified to make the report. The appraisal is five years removed in time.

Mozeika v. Townsley (In Re Townsley)

195 B.R. 54 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Texas · Apr 10, 1996

Generally, the misrepresentations must be of past or current acts; a promise to perform acts in the future is not considered a qualifying misrepresentation merely because the promise subsequently is breached. … Mozeika’s evidence falls short of the proof needed to establish nondischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(A).