Case law

Mogley v. Fleming (In re Fleming)

287 B.R. 212 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Missouri · Nov 30, 2001

Seven years later, however, the Supreme Court clearly rejected such an analysis and held that establishing an exception to discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A) *217 automatically excepts from discharge all liability arising from … The Court now turns to the question of whether Mogley’s state court fraud judgment qualifies for an exception from discharge under § 523(a)(2)(A).

Wali Wakilpoor v. Faruque (In Re Faruque)

413 B.R. 309 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 9, 2009

The complaint alleges that the debtor does not qualify to file as an individual because he did business through a corporation, Amar Construction Company (“Amar”), of which he was a “director/partner.” … The complaint, while confusing denial of discharge with exception from discharge, does allege conduct by the debtor that, if true, would clearly fall within Sections 727(a)(2) and (4).

In Re Singletary

354 B.R. 455 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas · Oct 19, 2006

However, the median income exemption of § 707(b)(7) does not make a debtor completely immune from motions to dismiss or convert. … Conversely, the House would still qualify as “scheduled” on that date. *468 2.

Williams v. American Education Service (In re Williams)

492 B.R. 79 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Georgia · May 13, 2013

Therefore, Debtor believes she will no longer qualify to work as a driver and will have to seek new employment. … This prong “most clearly reflects the congressional imperative that the debtor’s hardship must be more than the normal hardship that accompanies bankruptcy.” Frushour, 433 F.3d at 401 .

Lipscomb ex rel. LMI GUC Trust v. Clairvest Equity Partners Ltd. Partnership (In re LMI Legacy Holdings, Inc.)

553 B.R. 235 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Jun 3, 2016

Third, severance and transfer of the Trustee’s aiding and abetting claim would clearly be improper. … Furthermore, the Defendants against whom the Trustee has brought claims for breach of fiduciary duty clearly have an interest in any findings of fact related to the aforementioned questions of fact, and would qualify for

Eckles v. Petco Inc., Interstate (In Re Balducci Oil Co.)

33 B.R. 847 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Colorado · Sep 16, 1983

Plaintiff is the duly appointed, qualified, and acting Trustee in the bankruptcy of Balducci Oil Company, Inc. (“Balducci”), the Debtor in a bankruptcy proceeding commenced March 31, 1982. 2. … The courts have found mutuality between three parties, as a matter of contract law, where there was an express contractual agreement clearly evincing the intent of the parties to treat the parent and subsidiary as one entity

Rank v. United States Internal Revenue Service (In Re Rank)

161 B.R. 406 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 4, 1993

The Internal Revenue Service (hereafter “IRS”) may compute the taxpayer’s income by any method which clearly reflects the taxpayer’s income. 26 U.S.C. § 446 (b). … The Substitute for Return filed for 1983, however, does not comport with the statutory requirements of 26 U.S.C. § 6020 (b) or the principle established in Cross.

Richard Royce Collection Ltd. v. New York City Shoes, Inc. (In Re New York City Shoes, Inc.)

84 B.R. 947 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 6, 1988

These sales certainly qualify as a “use in commerce” under the present facts because a line builder in the shoe industry like Shub ordinarily would sell to retailers, not to consumers. … However, the facts of the present case are clearly distinguishable from those of El Sombrero.

Picard Ex Rel. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC v. Estate of Chais (In Re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC)

445 B.R. 206 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Feb 24, 2011

creditor generally, and prove the existence of an actual, qualifying creditor at trial.”). … It is worth mentioning that the Global Crossing court did not hold that a category of qualifying unsecured creditors must be pled.

Best Manufacturing, Inc. v. White Plains Coat & Apron Co. (In Re Daniele Laundries, Inc.)

34 B.R. 931 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Nov 21, 1983

In view of the fact that this is not a Chapter 11 case, clause (C) is clearly inapplicable. … That claim has already been established by the judgment that Best obtained against the debtor.

Aspedon v. Labbee (In Re Aspedon)

73 B.R. 538 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Iowa · May 12, 1987

Only one expert was called — that by debtors — and defendants tacitly admitted that he was well qualified and reasonable in his opinion. … Those facts include the inability of the appraiser to fix any definite discount factor or establish any basis or experience for setting such a factor.

Lenchner v. Korn (In re Korn)

567 B.R. 280 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · Apr 14, 2017

“In section 523(a)(4), the term ‘while acting in a fiduciary capacity5 does not qualify the words ‘embezzlement’ or ‘larceny.’ … Such things clearly were not part of this jury instruction.

Americash Loans, LLC v. Marquardt (In re Marquardt)

561 B.R. 715 · United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. Illinois · Dec 29, 2016

Very little research was required to confirm that loans subject to the Payday Loan Reform Act do not qualify as open end credit plans that would be entitled to the presumption created by § 523(a)(2)(C). … An intent to deceive may be established through direct evidence or inference. In re Sheridan, 57 F.3d 627, 633 (7th Cir. 1995).

Segner v. Ruthven Oil & Gas, LLC (In re Provident Royalties, LLC)

581 B.R. 185 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas · Jun 3, 2017

“The proponent of expert testimony bears the burden of establishing its admissibility.” Kador v. City of New *197 Roads, No. 3:07-682, 2011 WL 4889102 , at *1, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118110 , at *2 (M.D. La. … In this case, an application of state law to section 550 of the Bankruptcy Code as Cianna suggests would clearly frustrate the purpose of section 550.

In Re Ward

423 B.R. 22 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York · Jan 12, 2010

See Gray, 2009 WL 1787710 , at *6 n. 2 (“Plaintiffs allegations of fraud regarding the underlying loan transaction do not appear to be of the type recognized by certain courts as immune from res judicata.”); Slater, 200 B.R … established.”

In Re Heritage Mall Associates

184 B.R. 128 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Jul 11, 1995

This result is improper and may discourage qualified practitioners from participating in bankruptcy cases; a result that is clearly contrary to Congressional intent. 84 B.R. at 671, 672 . … The UST has argued, however, and this court agrees, that the burden is upon the applicant to establish the necessary factors which would enable this court to conclude that the fee agreement is reasonable.

In Re Sonner

53 B.R. 859 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · Oct 17, 1985

Initially, of course, the Congress of the United States clearly indicated that the act would affect only those cases filed ninety days after its enactment 2 . … The language of Internal Revenue Code Regulation section 1.677(a)-l(d) clearly states that a trust whose income is used to discharge a legal obligation of the grantor is a grantor trust.

In Re Washington Mutual, Inc.

450 B.R. 490 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Jun 1, 2011

In order to qualify for the deferred tax benefits, the plan must be “unfunded,” that is it must provide that any distributions to the employees will come only from the general assets of the company. … In this case the Debtors argue that because the Ahmanson Plans were *503 unfunded and the funds in the Trusts were clearly identified as property of the Debtors, no such tracing is possible. (Ex.

Calais Regional Hospital v. Carranza, in her capacity as administrator for the

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maine · Jun 3, 2020

On the question of personal jurisdiction over the SBA generally, sovereign immunity presents little difficulty. The federal government and its agencies are immune from suit in the absence of a waiver. … In light of section 106, and because the SBA qualifies as a governmental unit under 11 U.S.C. § 101(27), sovereign immunity does not preclude the exercise of jurisdiction over the SBA as to the Debtor’s claim under section

Penobscot Valley Hospital v. Carranza, in her capacity as administrator for the

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maine · Jun 3, 2020

On the question of personal jurisdiction over the SBA generally, sovereign immunity presents little difficulty. The federal government and its agencies are immune from suit in the absence of a waiver. … In light of section 106, and because the SBA qualifies as a governmental unit under 11 U.S.C. § 101(27), sovereign immunity does not preclude the exercise of jurisdiction over the SBA as to the Debtor’s claim under section