Case law

Dawson v. Washington Mutual Bank (In Re Dawson)

346 B.R. 503 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California · Jul 27, 2006

Although the evidence established that the Bank had knowledge that Mr. … Dawson clearly had other serious pressures on him at the time of the Bank’s stay violation that likely contributed to his emotional distress. However, to establish causation, Mrs.

In Re Berg

407 B.R. 167 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 1, 2009

Id. 3 Clearly the issue was not the IRS’s failure to observe that Debtor had filed a *171 return. … The legal principles that govern this dispute are very well established.

In re Kardash

573 B.R. 257 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 21, 2017

Co., 547 U.S. 651, 655 , 126 S.Ct. 2105, 2109 , 165 L.Ed.2d 110 (2006) ("[P]referential treatment of a class of creditors is in order only when clearly authorized by Congress,”). … "Every claim granted priority status reduces the funds available to general unsecured creditors and may diminish the *264 recovery of other claimants qualifying for equal or lesser priorities.”

In Re Constitutional Trust No. 2-562

114 B.R. 627 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Minnesota · May 18, 1990

Since the debt- or is clearly not an individual or a partnership, to be a person the debtor must be a corporation. … In Moog , the Eleventh Circuit allowed a consumer debtor relief under chapter 11, since she did not qualify for chapter 13 relief and chapter 7 relief meant losing her home.

In Re Public Service Co. of New Hampshire

93 B.R. 823 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Hampshire · Nov 10, 1988

Complex bankruptcy cases such as these consolidated proceedings cannot function without the serious and dedicated efforts of qualified professionals. … The amounts requested under the present applications are clearly below the amount of final fee awards in a case of this magnitude.

First Union National Bank of Florida v. Tenn-Fla Partners (In Re Tenn-Fla Partners)

170 B.R. 946 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Tennessee · Aug 4, 1994

Moreover, the proof established that the debtor’s managing partner and Mr. … The facts of Schipper clearly are distinguished from the present facts. In Schipper § 363 rather than § 1144 was at issue.

Maloney v. Harte (In Re Harte)

440 B.R. 133 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Michigan · Oct 14, 2010

To establish a qualifying trust, the Plaintiff must demonstrate: “(1) an intent to create a trust; (2) a trustee; (3) a trust res; and (4) a definite beneficiary.” Patel, 565 F.3d at 968 . … The Lawsuit, however, is clearly listed on Schedule B.

Broadfoot v. Diaz (In Re International Telemedia Associates, Inc.)

245 B.R. 713 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia · Feb 15, 2000

Under the facts and circumstances presented here, Rule 4(f)(3) clearly authorizes the Court to direct service upon Diaz by facsimile transmission, electronic mail, and mail to the defendant’s last known address. … Without objection, the Court found and concluded that Hutchins was qualified as an expert and could testify regarding his methodologies, findings, and conclusions with respect to the damages analysis he had performed.

Michael A. Grassmueck, Inc. v. WFS Financial, Inc. (In Re Cortez)

255 B.R. 324 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Nov 22, 2000

Since the commencement of the Debtors’ chapter 7 case, the Trustee has been the duly qualified chapter 7 trustee. … The Debtors clearly included the 1999 Ford on their Schedule B and identified WFS’ security interest in the 1999 Ford on Schedule D. There was no failure to disclose nor ambiguity in disclosure.

Wilborn v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In Re Wilborn)

401 B.R. 848 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas · Feb 17, 2009

Well, 1322(b)(2) doesn’t immunize lenders from a review of fees and expenses just because the loan documents say they get their fees *854 and expenses. Why? … Moreover, a movant seeking disqualification bears the burden of proving that a judge is not qualified by clear and convincing evidence. See Kinnear-Weed Corp. v.

Pher Partners v. Womble (In Re Womble)

289 B.R. 836 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 5, 2003

The Texas Supreme Court concluded that “the Internal Revenue Code’s qualified disclaimer section is instructive on the issue of what actions qualify as an exercise of dominion and control.” Id. at 397. … We do not find the court’s conclusion to be clearly erroneous. Union Planters Bank N.A. v. Connors, 283 F.3d at 900 .

Organic Family, LLC v. Pawlak (In re Pawlak)

467 B.R. 462 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Feb 7, 2012

Fiduciary obligations between equals, such as general partners in a partnership or joint venturers, do not qualify. Woldman, 92 F.3d at 547 . When considering where Mr. … A fiduciary relation only qualifies under § 523(a)(4) if it “imposes real duties in advance of the breach.” Marchiando, 13 F.3d at 1116 .

Peters v. Wray State Bank (In Re Kerst)

347 B.R. 418 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Colorado · Aug 8, 2006

The Defendant established that the only significant delay was caused by VW Credit’s failure to promptly process the lien release. … While the Marietta case pre-dates the Ar-nett decision, its reasoning is clearly in line with the Pine Top line of cases. 13 .

In Re Elsub Corp.

70 B.R. 797 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 27, 1987

The petitions filed by counsel for Stephen Canale and Wagman Andre Walker were not verified, and filed after the established deadline for filing. … The circumstances herein clearly permit the withdrawal of these four (4) creditors’ petitions for joinder previously filed in this case.

In Re Products Intern. Co.

395 B.R. 101 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Arizona · Sep 2, 2008

Next, the amendments incorporated into Section 1112(b), as a result of BAPCPA, also add an introductory qualifying phrase which carves out certain ex *108 ceptions. … As explained in 7 Collier on Bankruptcy, ¶ 1112.04[3], p. 1112-26, 1112-27 (15th ed. rev.): Although section 1112(b) does not define the phrase “unusual circumstances,” it clearly contemplates conditions that are not common

In Re Ames Department Stores, Inc.

115 B.R. 34 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · May 15, 1990

The bank was to effectively operate the debtor’s business; its pre-petition liens would be immunized from attack by not only the debtor but by a creditors’ committee even prior to the appointment of counsel; preference, fraudulent … The cases clearly establish that although a debtor is not required to seek credit from every possible source, a debtor must show that it has made a reasonable effort to seek other sources of credit available under section

In Re Joshua Slocum, Ltd.

99 B.R. 250 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 29, 1989

Like any new tenant obtained by Denney, it will clearly start anew without advertising any “going out of business sale.” … However, clearly not all such covenants are unenforceable.

Abramov v. Movshovich (In re Movshovich)

521 B.R. 42 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · Oct 23, 2014

Accordingly, the Company qualifies as an “insider.” … “The elements of an express trust have traditionally included an explicit declaration of trust, a clearly defined trust res, and an intent to create a trust relationship.” Fahey, 482 B.R. at 687 .

Eastern Colorado Bank v. Harvie (In Re Harvie)

84 B.R. 197 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Colorado · Mar 21, 1988

In reviewing this regulation, Judge Brum-baugh held: This regulation clearly is intended to promote the administrative convenience of the government agency disbursing the benefits. … In conclusion, this Court holds that the Bank has established a perfected security interest in rents of the debtor and that the CRP payment in the form of a commodity certificate constitutes rent to which the Bank is entitled

210 Ludlow Street Corp. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In Re 210 Ludlow Street Corp.)

455 B.R. 443 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 3, 2011

Heightened scrutiny is appropriate when two competent appraisals are presented by qualified appraisers stating widely divergent values. See In re Grind Coffee & Nosh, L.L.C., 2011 WL 1301357 (Bankr.S.D.Miss.2011). … The Court has no problem with that approach, in principle, since clearly, if there is a required capital expenditure that a buyer would have to make it would lower the value of the Property.