Case law

In Re Rosenquist

122 B.R. 775 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Dec 18, 1990

For example, Section 222.21 would immunize these assets from levy or execution under Florida law. … Clearly, the Code provides protection to debtors and, in return, imposes numerous requirements on them that do not exist in non-bankruptcy settings.

Matravers v. United States (In Re Matravers)

149 B.R. 204 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Utah · Jan 15, 1993

The IRS received transfers of property and earnings of the debtors, clearly within the broad chapter 13 definition of the “property of the estate.” … In re Lile, 103 B.R. 830, 835 (Bankr.S.D.Tex.1989), established that a “proof of claim and claim against the IRS for improper levy on personal property arise out of the same operative facts, namely failure to pay taxes.”

In Re Smurfit-Stone Container Corp.

444 B.R. 111 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Jan 10, 2011

As further explained below, Wedlake has failed to carry its burden to establish its entitlement to allowance and payment of the Wind-Up Claim. … Temple Marble & Tile, 640 N.Y.S.2d 849 , 663 N.E.2d at 893 (“Where, as here, a descriptive or qualifying phrase follows a list of possible antecedents, the qualifying phrase generally refers to and modifies all of the preceding

Matter of Universal Lunches, Inc.

2 B.R. 58 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York · Dec 13, 1979

S., supra, that an answer may be compelled only if it “clearly appears” to the court that the fear of incrimination is mistaken. … S., supra, that a person is also privileged from furnishing information that would establish a “link in a chain” tending to establish guilt.

Corletta v. Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (In re Pappas)

517 B.R. 708 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Texas · Sep 8, 2014

Plaintiff maintains that Muir establishes that a state entity does not qualify as a gov *721 ernmental agency if it is not an "arm of the state.” Muir, 239 B.R. at 217 . That is partially correct. … Muir holds that for an entity to assert sovereign immunity as a defense to a suit, the affected agency must be an "arm of the state.” Id.

Brandon v. Sherwood (In re Sann)

546 B.R. 850 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Montana · Feb 26, 2016

Defendants contend that the Trust Funds clearly were not the property of Sann subject to turnover to Plaintiff because of the litigation initiated by the FTC and that Sherwood had been obliged to comply with the district … It “lifts the bar of sovereign immunity for award of fees in suits brought by litigants qualifying under the statute, [but] does so only to the extent explicitly and unequivocally provided.” Fidelity Constr. Co. v.

Rollins v. Campbell (In Re Rollins)

200 B.R. 427 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia · Aug 20, 1996

Finally, they assert that their conduct is protected by official and individual qualified immunity as well as sovereign immunity. I. … a clearly established statutory or constitutional right.

Great Western Coal, Inc. v. Brown (In Re Great Western Coal, Inc.)

146 B.R. 702 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas · May 6, 1992

Due process was clearly served. … Though it, too, waives sovereign immunity, it fails to establish unambiguously that, the waiver extends to monetary claims. At -, 112 S.Ct. at 1015 , 117 L.Ed.2d at 188 . (emphasis added).

In Re Turner

261 B.R. 767 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 30, 2001

It is evident that this provision would not save the claimed exemption because on its face it clearly indicates that this Plan was established pursuant to IRC § 457(g) which, just like in Handshaw , makes this Plan a non-ERISA … For this reason it is clear that the Plan, which is established pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code § 457(g), is not an ERISA qualified plan.

In Re Warden

36 B.R. 968 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Utah · Jan 25, 1984

Debtors’ pre-petition tax liability to the IRS qualifies under Section 553(a) as “a claim ... against the debtor that arose before the commencement of this case.” … Significant administrative difficulty arises when established claims change through payment outside the *973 plan. Often the creditor receiving payment does not report to the Court and the Trustee the payment.

Nejberger v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (In Re Nejberger)

112 B.R. 714 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 13, 1990

Since the debtor here does not seek monetary relief, only injunctive relief, sovereign immunity is not affected. III. A. … If such tender would qualify the debtor for license renewal, then the denial of such renewal is improper under bankruptcy law.

Univ. of Wis. Oshkosh Found., Inc. v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Wis. Sys. (In re Univ. of Wis. Oshkosh Found., Inc.)

592 B.R. 216 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Aug 29, 2018

The amount of the State's obligation was clearly set by the amount of the bond issuance, the promissory note and the Foundation's guaranty, and the obligation was not conditioned on the occurrence of any event. … According to the State, the legislature would not have extended the State's waiver of sovereign immunity that far.

In Re Ridenour

45 B.R. 72 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Tennessee · Nov 13, 1984

Effective December 1, 1976, the partnership established a pension plan for partners and employees. … The terms of the plan described at 32 B.R. 768 would clearly qualify it for exemption under the state exemption statute. See infra note 5. 5 .

Adams v. Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa & Chippewa Indians Economic Development Authority (In Re Adams)

133 B.R. 191 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Michigan · Oct 28, 1991

The Band’s Constitution provides that the tribal government shall be immune from suit. … The Tribal Court is the more expert court to handle the Debtor’s claims and comity clearly favors deferring to the autonomy of the Tribal Court.

In re Residential Capital, LLC

533 B.R. 874 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Aug 4, 2015

The evidence shows that GMACM clearly established the following address to which a QWR must be sent (the “QWR Address”): GMAC Mortgage, Attn: Customer Care, PÓ Box 1330, Waterloo, IA 50704-1330. {See Def.’s Ex. … However, the November 2009 Mortgage Statement clearly indicates each address under a bold subheading titled “General Inquiries” or “Qualified Written Request,” respectively (id.), whereas the Roth mortgage statement did not

In Re Medill

119 B.R. 685 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Minnesota · Oct 9, 1990

Regardless, the result is foreordained, under the established terms of the Minnesota constitution. … The Trustee had the burden of establishing the unconstitutionality of subd. 22 beyond a reasonable doubt. Head v.

Republic Realty Mortgage Corp. v. Harris (In re Eagson Corp.)

26 B.R. 657 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 2, 1980

thereunder; and (7) the burden of establishing immunity from liability is on the party who seeks such immunity. 5 Applying that test to the facts of the instant case, it does not appear that the clause in question contravenes … Further, even construing the exculpatory clause strictly against Republic and Westinghouse, the clause does clearly and with sufficient particularity evidence the intent of the parties to exculpate Republic and Westinghouse

In Re Miller

33 B.R. 549 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Minnesota · Sep 6, 1983

Clearly the citation was meant to be § 522(d)(10)(E) and no issue has been raised by the trustee as to the erroneous citation. 5 . … See Plumb, The Recommendations of the Commission on the Bankruptcy Laws — Exempt and Immune Property, 61 Va.L.Rev. 1, 59. 11 .

In re Legassick

534 B.R. 362 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Iowa · Jul 8, 2015

If the IRS is a creditor under Knudsen , then it has waived its sovereign immunity and must be bound by the Plan. … Instead, § 1222(a)(2)(A) clearly and unequivocally applies to a “governmental unit,” regardless of whether that *368 “governmental unit” qualifies as a “creditor” of the debtor under § 1227(a). Id. at 707-08.

In Re Goodrich

7 B.R. 590 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Nov 19, 1980

To establish ... uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; ... … Immunity from federal regulation is not gained through forehanded contracts. Were it otherwise the paramount powers of Congress could be nullified by ‘prophetic discernment.’