Case law

In Re Momenta, Inc.

2011 BNH 10 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Hampshire · Aug 19, 2011

These pre-BAPCPA decisions establish a long history connecting administrative expense claims to the right of reclamation. … For instance, 11 U.S.C. § 507 (a) establishes separate priority for administrative expenses and for claims. Id. at 429 .

Matter of Weinbrenner

53 B.R. 571 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Aug 28, 1985

security interest and that the property qualified as a tool of the debtor’s trade. … With this established, two questions are presented.

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).

In Re Palmer

117 B.R. 443 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Iowa · Jun 8, 1990

.”^ If the debt owed by the Debtor to his former spouse is classified as a consumer debt, then clearly Debtor’s debts are primarily consumer debts. … Thus, the Court concludes that the debt was incurred principally in order to allow the Debtor to retain the homestead, and therefore the debt qualifies as a consumer debt. B.

Geiger v. Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation

137 B.R. 586 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 4, 1992

It is perhaps pertinent to note, at this juncture, that it was established, in In re Johnson-Alien, 871 F.2d 421 , 423, 428 (3d Cir.1989), aff'd sub nom. … Nordic Village, Inc., — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1011 , 117 L.Ed.2d 181 (1992) ( 11 U.S.C. § 106 (c) does not waive federal immunity).

In re Coughlin

568 B.R. 461 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York · Jun 15, 2017

Petitioners’ plans clearly “provided for” respondent’s home mortgage claims by establishing repayment schedules for the satisfaction of the arrearages portion of those claims. … The Fifth Circuit held as follows: Because the Kesslers failed to complete post-petition mortgage payments that fall under the plan, they do not qualify for discharge under the plain terms of § 1328(a), which instructs a

Providian Bancorp v. Stockard (In Re Stockard)

216 B.R. 237 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Tennessee · Dec 16, 1997

The fact that the creditor’s reliance must be justifiable was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Field v. … The 1978 Code required courts to award fees and costs "unless such granting of judgment would be clearly inequitable.”

In re Oldner

191 B.R. 146 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · Aug 18, 1995

The rule is well-established in Arkansas that homestead laws are remedial and should be liberally construed to effectuate the purpose for which they are intended. Smith v. Flash T.V. … All these characteristics taken together clearly support a finding that the debtor’s property is urban in nature. Therefore, the trustee’s objection to the claim of a rural homestead is sustained.

Matter of Elsub Corp.

66 B.R. 172 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 25, 1986

To establish the requisite liability, Elsub also relies upon language in the February 15, 1984 Agreement pursuant to which Elsub acquired all the outstanding capital stock of PNJ. … Accordingly, contingency as to liability and contingency as to payment are clearly two distinct concepts.

In Re Strange

424 B.R. 584 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Georgia · Jan 20, 2010

As a preliminary matter, it is well-established that the relevant time period for analyzing the personal use question is the time of acquisition of the vehicle at issue. … However, even with this understanding of the language, the statute cannot be applied without adding some qualifier as to the extent of Debtor’s use. Courts have taken varying approaches to filling the gap.

Federal Trade Commission v. Abeyta (In Re Abeyta)

387 B.R. 846 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Mexico · May 8, 2008

In this case three of the four elements required for collateral estoppel are clearly present. … Wright (In re Wright), 187 B.R. 826, 833-834 (Bankr.D.Conn.1995)(noting that "[tjhe requirement that an issue be 'actually litigated' to qualify for collateral estoppel does not imply that preclusion is available only for

In Re Tbr USA, Inc.

429 B.R. 599 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Jan 7, 2010

Regardless, § 702(a)(1) clearly requires that, in order to vote, the creditor must have an allowable claim. … Thus, she does not qualify under § 702(a)(2). In re Williams, 277 B.R. at 118 .

In Re Repurchase Corp.

329 B.R. 832 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 7, 2005

The Minnesota Bankruptcy Judge is undoubtedly better qualified to interpret and enforce his own order and this Court will not interfere with the exercise of his jurisdiction over the matter. … The Court's purpose in taking judicial notice of these records is to establish the existence of the case and related filings. See generally, Kramer v. Time Warner Inc., 937 F.2d 767, 774 (2d Cir.1991). 2 .

In Re Townsend

187 B.R. 230 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Tennessee · Oct 2, 1995

order to respond to a material question or to testify; (B) on the ground of privilege against self-incrimination, to respond to a material question approved by the court or to testify, after the Debtor has been granted immunity … Thus, any qualifying tax debt which was discharged in a prior confirmed plan would be binding on the taxing authority in any subsequent plan.

In re Rody

468 B.R. 384 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Arizona · Feb 6, 2012

. § 33-1133(B) clearly states that Arizona debtors are only entitled to the exemptions set forth in the Constitution or Statutes of Arizona.” In re Hoffpauir, 125 B.R. 269, 271 (Bankr.D.Ariz.1990). … Arrol was decided pre-BAPCPA, when there was no default provision allowing use of the federal exemptions if a debtor did not qualify for the applicable state’s exemptions.

Hays v. Equitex, Inc. (In Re RDM Sports Group, Inc.)

277 B.R. 415 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia · Apr 2, 2002

The Court makes no determination as to whether the settlement letter qualifies as work product. … The plaintiff argued that the letter was admissible for the nonprohibited purpose of establishing the defendant’s bias.

Bello v. Azar (In re Bello)

596 B.R. 41 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · Dec 20, 2018

On February 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed a request for reconsideration with a different Medicare contractor known as a qualified independent contractor ("QIC"). … Title XVIII establishes, among other things, hospital insurance programs (Part A), and supplementary medical insurance (Part B).

Gray Ex Rel. Dehon Inc. v. Western Environmental Services & Testing, Inc. (In Re Dehon Inc.)

352 B.R. 546 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 12, 2006

The Order approving the bidding procedures in connection with the sale (the "Bidding Procedures Order”) established the time and manner of the solicitation of higher offers, defined a "Qualifying Bid” and established the … dates and procedures for the auction of the assets in the event the Debtors received a Qualifying Bid before the deadline.

Corcoran v. McCabe (In re McCabe)

543 B.R. 182 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 11, 2015

Specifically, § 523(c) establishes that bankruptcy courts have exclusive jurisdiction to determine nondischargeability disputes under § 523(a)(6). 5 See, e.g., Judd v. … Thus, collateral estoppel clearly does not apply.

OHC Liquidation Trust Ex Rel. Alvarez & Marsal, LLC v. Discover Re & United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (In Re Oakwood Homes Corp.)

342 B.R. 59 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · May 10, 2006

Each party agrees not to assert as a defense in any such action, suit or proceeding, any Claim that it is not subject personally to the jurisdiction of such court; that its property is exempt or immune from attachment or … In light of the fact that each of these three relationships is independent, it is “well-established” that “a letter of credit and the proceeds therefrom are not property of the debtor’s estate.”