Case law

In Re Austin

299 B.R. 482 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Tennessee · Jun 13, 2003

However, Browne does quote from an opinion by the same author, In re Marshalek, 158 B.R. 704 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1998), in which the court found that the rule in the Sixth Circuit, as established by Krohn , is that ability to … This court believes that Krohn clearly states that the ability of a debtor to pay his debts may alone warrant dismissal of his Chapter 7 case for substantial abuse, though that result is not necessarily required.

Barrett v. Commonwealth Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n (In Re Barrett)

113 B.R. 175 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 1990

Established on that date were the bases for Orders of February 16, 1990, and February 22, 1990, respectively, establishing the amount of the secured proofs of claim of CFSLA and Gunn at $36,310.64 and $9,503.69, respectively … Martin clearly emphasized the dichotomy between an “ordinary” private sale and a “forced” sheriff’s sale in Philadelphia, and convine- *183 ingly opined that a sheriffs sale frequently yields less than fifty (50%) percent

Northeast Bank v. Caterpillar Financial Services Corp. (In Re T & R Flagg Logging Inc.)

399 B.R. 334 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maine · Jan 23, 2009

But providing Caterpillar with pmsi priority based on the parties’ subjective expectations would do violence to Article Nine’s carefully crafted scheme establishing how consensual liens are created, perfected, and prioritized … Thus, a security interest does not qualify as a purchase-money security interest if a debtor acquires properly on unsecured credit and subsequently creates the security interest to secure the purchase price. 11 M.R.S.A. §

Gold v. A.J. Hollander Co. (In Re Maislin Industries, U.S., Inc.)

176 B.R. 436 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · Jan 19, 1995

The extensive legislative history of the NRA clearly demonstrates otherwise. VII. … Finally, the defendants assert that section 2(a) of the NRA exempts persons qualifying as small business concerns from liability for the difference between rates originally billed and the applicable and effective tariff rates

Lone Star Milk Producers, Inc. v. Litzler

370 B.R. 671 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas · Jun 27, 2007

However, the ability of a state to create trusts excluding property from bankruptcy estates is clearly not without limitation. … Such a mechanism clearly contemplates the commingling of raw milk from multiple dairy farmers and does not require tracing.

Cervantes v. Santa Cruz County (In Re Cervantes)

212 B.R. 643 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California · Sep 4, 1997

Cervantes had not been established to be Samantha’s father. The County began providing public assistance in March 1993. … This is clearly different from a debt owed “to a spouse, former spouse, or child of the debt- or,” as is required by § 523(a)(5). Visness, 57 F.3d at 781 .

ITT Commercial Finance Corp. v. Cullen (In Re Antinarelli Enterprises, Inc.)

94 B.R. 227 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 13, 1988

This is clearly not so. The debtor was an electronics store and its only inventory was electronics and accessories, and not cash. … ITT also asserts that in order to qualify for the operation of business exception, the payments must be voluntary for them to be found in the ordinary course. 1 Footnote 8 of Citizens National Bank v.

Sellner v. Patterson (In Re Patterson)

375 B.R. 652 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Kansas · Jun 4, 2007

that either of these fees qualifies as a “franchise fee” under the MFA. … Such violations clearly are sufficient to establish liability under the MFA for rescission (the remedy Sellner seeks in his motion), but just as clearly are not sufficient to show that the resulting liability is covered by

NesSmith Electric Co. v. Kelley (In Re Kelley)

84 B.R. 225 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 23, 1988

joint venture agreement, wherein plaintiff agreed to lend its credit with Transamerica Insurance Company (“Surety”) to permit issuance of performance and payment bonds in favor of HRS for the project so that Abney could qualify … The elements necessary to create an express or “technical” trust include (1) sufficient words to create a trust, (2) a clearly defined trust res, and (3) an intent to create a trust relationship.

In Re Dow Corning Corp.

227 B.R. 111 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · Jan 25, 1999

The speech involved in Semco clearly was commercial speech as that term is defined in Bolger . … Clearly, then, the U/S CC was justified in looking to established precedent in the field of securities regulation for guidance on the meaning of “solicitation” in § 1125(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.

In Re Greene

346 B.R. 835 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Nevada · Jul 27, 2006

Debtor claimed the tent qualified as a “dwelling house.” B. The Second Bankruptcy Case: Chapter 7 (BK 05-5b727) Debtor filed his Chapter 7 petition October 15, 2005. … Congress clearly distinguished “property” from “interest” and made the latter a component of the former.

PaineWebber Inc. v. Magisano (In Re Magisano)

228 B.R. 187 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 23, 1998

“The phrase ‘while acting in a fiduciary capacity’ clearly qualifies the words ‘fraud or defalcation’ ...” 4 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY § 524 10[l][c] (15th ed.1997). … The existence of an express trust requires a clearly defined trust res, an unambiguous trust relationship, and specific, affirmative duties undertaken by a trustee.

Christensen v. Jubber

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Utah · Mar 27, 2020

Nearly seventy years ago, the Supreme Court noted that “[t]he practice is well established by which trustees seek instructions from the court, given upon notice to creditors and interested parties, as to matters which … , the Court wants to make abundantly clear that it is not engaging in an immunity analysis nor deciding this case on immunity grounds.

Bast v. Orange Meat Packing Co. (In Re G & L Packing Co.)

20 B.R. 789 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. New York · May 24, 1982

In essence, Empire also alleges it was a cash seller and statutory beneficiary qualifying under the P & S Act. … Upon cross-examination, the witness’ opinions were qualified.

Woodard v. Stewart (In Re Stewart)

280 B.R. 268 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 1, 2001

No other direct evidence of the tax-qualified status of the plan was offered into evidence. … A default is clearly within the Court’s discretion. Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7055 (1998). Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 4005 clearly places the initial burden of persuasion in an objection to discharge on the Plaintiff.

Country Credit, LLC v. Martin (In re Martin)

513 B.R. 303 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Mississippi · Jul 10, 2014

“It is well established that writings with pertinent omissions may qualify as ‘materially false’ for purposes of § 523(a)(2)(B).” Jordan, 927 F.2d at 224 (citation omitted) (emphasis added). … Instead, every mention of “child support” is preceded by a qualifying term such as “debt” or “family financial issues.”

In re: Barrow Shaver Resources Company, LLC

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas · Aug 24, 2026

If the Debtor had rejected the JOA and EA on day one of the bankruptcy, then Middleton Oil would clearly be entitled only to unsecured rejection damages. … This is because “[i]mposition of a constructive trust clearly thwarts the policy of ratable distribution and should not be impressed cavalierly.”

Gerard v. United States Department of Education

United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia · Jan 17, 2020

The Court may issue a preliminary injunction if the moving party “clearly establishe[s] the ‘burden of persuasion’ as to each of the four prerequisites”: (1) the movant … App’x 945, 951 n.7 (11th Cir. 2016) (“we have always required each of the four preliminary-injunction elements to be ‘clearly established’ before imposing the ‘drastic remedy’ of a preliminary injunction”); Rau v.

Jackson v. Marlette (In Re Jackson)

317 B.R. 573 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 30, 2004

Additionally, they stated: If the Debtors had filed a declaration of homestead prior to filing their bankruptcy petition, the Plymouth Street property would have been immunized from creditors while the Debtors’ outstanding … In the first place, the Court rejects Marlette argument that the Debtors are relying upon 11 U.S.C. § 327 (e), which they cited in their Motion to Employ Special Counsel, to establish jurisdiction.

Sallings v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.

357 B.R. 646 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Alabama · Feb 6, 2007

Debtor cites the case of In re Coxson, 43 F.3d 189 (5th Cir.1995), in which the Fifth Circuit held that although § 1640(e) creates a one-year limitations period, it does not establish a limitations period when violation of … The court explained: To qualify as recoupment a cause of action must be asserted defensively. Under the facts of this case, Smith’s cause of action is not asserted as a defense.