Case law

Giddens v. Pioneer Credit (In re Giddens)

205 B.R. 349 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Georgia · Jan 29, 1997

Such a clearly intentional act would seem to have some legal significance. On the other hand, the policy of the Uniform Commercial Code encourages notice of liens. … Accordingly, the second UCC-1 will be deemed to be a back-up financing statement with its own separately established priority.

Nielsen v. United States (In Re Nielsen)

143 B.R. 93 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas · May 29, 1992

A formal assessment by the IRS is given the force of a judgment, and establishes a prima facie case of tax liability. *97 Bull v. … The IRS has not raised the defense of sovereign immunity. 2 . Section 6703 provides: § 6703.

Doucette v. Kwiat (In Re Kwiat)

62 B.R. 818 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 30, 1986

. § 523 (a)(4), as established by disciplinary rules adopted by the state’s highest court. … Consequently, it was possible that the findings in the state court would not have qualified the plaintiff for summary judgment. In In re Longo, 37 B.R. 900 (Bankr.D.Mass.1984) a trial was held by the bankruptcy court.

Judson v. Levine (In Re Levine)

40 B.R. 76 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. · May 4, 1984

Since the Plaintiff failed to establish a, pri-ma facie case against that Defendant, this Court granted the motion. … The Debtor’s residence qualified as his homestead and that was never an issue in this case. 3 . The exceptions expressly set forth in Art.10 § 4(a) of the Fla.

In Re DiMartino

97 B.R. 139 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Rhode Island · Mar 24, 1989

The plaintiffs are also entitled to recover rental profits lost to vacancy on account of the unfinished units, if they can be established by reliable evidence. Urico v. … Clearly the term does not embrace the construction "complete."

In Re Soltan

234 B.R. 260 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York · May 20, 1999

In other words, secured property taxes qualify as administrative expenses. … The Bankruptcy Court found ... that the tax was clearly incurred by Macy’s estates.

In re LAN Associates XIV, L.P.

193 B.R. 730 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 16, 1996

In this case, Metro’s failure to file a timely proof of claim neither constitutes “neglect” nor qualifies as “excusable” under the Pioneer criteria. … Metro has failed to establish excusable neglect under Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9006. Metro’s motion for allowance of its late filed claim is denied.

McDermott v. Petersen (In re Petersen)

564 B.R. 636 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Minnesota · Mar 10, 2017

must be shown to establish a continuing concealment. 195 B.R. at 450 . … The false oaths clearly related to Ms. Petersen’s business transactions or estate, they concern the discovery of assets, and the existence and disposition of Ms. Petersen’s property.”

AMR Corp. v. Committee of Retired Employees (In re AMR Corp.)

508 B.R. 296 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Apr 18, 2014

RC Ex. 192 at 77. 29 American’s assumption of such retiree liabilities was clearly important to the transaction. … Based on the record before the Court, the early out retiree agreements appear to qualify as welfare benefit plans under ERISA. .

In Re Axona International Credit & Commerce Ltd.

88 B.R. 597 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Aug 11, 1988

The Liquidators have duly qualified as such under the Companies Ordinance. E. … The facts of the instant proceeding are clearly distinguishable from those underlying Security Industrial Bank and Radford .

In Re Flanigan's Enterprises, Inc.

70 B.R. 248 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. · Jan 16, 1987

Yet, in almost all other cases involving disqualification of counsel, the burden of proof is upon the attorney seeking to qualify for employment. … 3 There is no evidence that establishes or tends to prove either impropriety or wrongdoing or disadvantage or prejudice to any party. In fact, the evidence establishes the opposite. The facts pass the smell test.

Hounsom v. United States

325 B.R. 319 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · May 13, 2005

Hounsom did not qualify for Chapter 13 because at the time her petition was filed she had noncontingent, liquidated, unsecured debts in excess of the $290,525 statutory maximum. (B.R. 69 at 5). The court dismissed Ms. … “Findings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary evidence, shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the bankruptcy court to judge the credibility of the witnesses

Raimondo v. New York State Higher Education Services Corp. (In Re Raimondo)

183 B.R. 677 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. New York · Jun 16, 1995

To qualify for the hardship discharge of an educational loan, a debtor must satisfy the three part test that the Second Circuit established in Brunner v. … On the other hand, an undue hardship would just as clearly occur if the debtor were required to repay the entire obligation to the New York Higher Education Services Corporation, in the principal amount of $24,577.78.

United States Trustee v. Anthonys (In re Anthonys)

539 B.R. 820 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Alaska · Oct 22, 2015

Schuster, and attempted to qualify his interest as being something less than a true ownership interest. … The transfers clearly fell within the two year disclosure period. Further, the debtor was not forthcoming about either transfer. He only revealed his sale of the Kingsmen property to Ms.

In Re Hudson Oil Co., Inc.

91 B.R. 932 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Kansas · Sep 30, 1988

Yarmchuk was a highly qualified and competent tax accountant, who both the trustee and Lain had used on several prior occasions. At the time he was retained, Yarmchuk believed that the 1983 return was already past due. … Section 106 of the Bankruptcy Code governs the government’s waiver of sovereign immunity in bankruptcy cases.

In Re Thompson

454 B.R. 486 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Idaho · May 17, 2011

In addition to being non-binding on this Court, Threats is clearly distinguishable. … IBM/FNMA did not submit ballots regarding its unsecured claims that were established by the prior Order. 8 .

Cuthill v. Greenmark, LLC (In Re World Vision Entertainment, Inc.)

275 B.R. 641 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 29, 2002

Here, the debtor clearly was insolvent at least as early as 1996. This insolvency increased with each successive note sold. … For example, the defendants did not review the master guarantee, which, if read, clearly indicated the coverage was illusory, at best.

Neary v. Happel (In Re Happel)

394 B.R. 915 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Sep 15, 2008

In re Hamilton, 390 B.R. 618, 625 (Bankr.E.D.Ark.2008) (“Omissions from schedules qualify as a false oath as if they are made knowingly and with fraudulent intent.”); In re Glenn, 335 B.R. 703, 707 (Bankr.W.D.Mo.2005); In … Even if the debtor lacked a conscious intent to deceive, the record is clear that her conduct clearly evinced a reckless disregard for the truth.

Johns v. Johns (In Re Johns)

181 B.R. 965 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Arizona · Apr 11, 1995

The Court notes that the Debtor’s testimony concerning the specific use of the funds for a college education was controverted by evidence clearly showing that the Debtor withdrew funds from one of the accounts to assist the … provisions of this article and grants to the custodian, and to any issuer, transfer agent, bank, life insurance company, broker or third person dealing with a person designated as custodian, the respective powers, rights and immunities

Johnson v. McCoy (In Re McCoy)

274 B.R. 751 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 12, 2002

Relevant portions of testator Judith McCoy’s will which established the Trust provide: ARTICLE IV Trust Dispositive Provisions [Paragraph 1 omitted.] 2. … Clearly, the settlor’s use of “desirable” in ARTICLE IV paragraph 2(b) of the Trust to qualify Debtor’s ability to get at the corpus for his own use is meaningful because just two sentences later the trustee’s discretion