Case law

In Re Oneida Lake Development, Inc.

114 B.R. 352 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. New York · Jan 24, 1990

At issue then is whether the Debtor has established compliance with either subsection (3) or (4). … The Court commented that “[t]he potential preference action against GMAC would certainly qualify as a bona fide dispute for purposes of § 363(f)(4).” Id. page 128. (emphasis added).

Grubin v. Rattet (In Re Food Management Group, LLC)

380 B.R. 677 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Jan 23, 2008

DR 7-102(b)(2), 22 NYCRR § 1200.33 (“A lawyer who receives information clearly establishing that a person other than the client has perpetrated a fraud upon a tribunal shall promptly reveal the fraud to the tribunal.”). 14 … DR 7-102(b)(2) requires evidence "clearly establishing” that a fraud has been committed to find a disciplinary violation for nondisclosure, the burden of proof for imposing civil liability is a preponderance of the evidence

Falcon Creditor Trust v. Blue Cross Blue Shield (In Re Falcon Products, Inc.)

372 B.R. 474 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Missouri · Jul 20, 2007

The Trust then alleged that certain elements of Blue Cross’ resulting claim do not qualify for priority treatment. … Blue Cross has established that no material facts are in dispute. 7.

Stubbs v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. (In Re Stubbs)

330 B.R. 717 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Sep 13, 2005

Lynch, 407 N.E.2d 280, 286 , supra, and quoted by this Court in In re Herr, supra: Constructive notice is a legal inference from established facts. … R.Bankr.P. 9017], and thus that evidentiary foundations must be established for documents, that hearsay doesn’t count, and that experts be qualified as experts on a cold record — among other nuances of establishing the admissibility

Steege v. Johnsson (In re Johnsson)

551 B.R. 384 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 2, 2016

The Bankruptcy Code does, however, qualify whether such property interests become property of a debtor’s bankruptcy estate. … This clearly established that the Debt- or, at the very least, was informed of her duty to report and turnover any inheritance that she may receive. For whatever reason, the Debtor decided to ignore this duty.

Baird Stokes

United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jun 9, 2023

Stokes argues the Shipyard did not establish a valid maritime lien on the Sailboat. … “For a party to establish a maritime lien in a vessel: (1) the good or service must qualify as a “necessary”; (2) the good or service must have been provided to the vessel; (3) on the order of the owner or agent; and (

In re Residential Capital, LLC

537 B.R. 161 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Sep 4, 2015

In response, Robertson asserts that “[a]s the undisputed owner of the property being assaulted, [he] is clearly a party in interest with standing to protect his property.” (Robertson Response at 4 (citation omitted).) … As a result, a plaintiff must establish that he or she has standing. See Raines v.

Schlossberg v. Fischer (In Re Fischer)

411 B.R. 247 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maryland · Jan 28, 2009

Further, in Maryland, any conveyance made to a husband and wife without restrictive or qualifying words is made to them as tenants by the entirety. Brewer, 48 A. at 1062 . … No evidence was produced that the conveyance of the MBI stock to Benson and Mona Fischer was made with “restrictive or qualifying words.”

European American Bank v. Launzel-Pennes (In Re Launzel-Pennes)

191 B.R. 6 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York · Jan 12, 1996

Second, EAB sought to establish that the Debtor neglected to indicate an ownership interest in a corporation known as Think Services, Inc. (“TSI”). … at IEMG as a prerequisite to the estab-hshment of a line of credit and acceptance of personal guarantees, as patently indicative of EAB’s intention to rely on the stated infor *15 mation and further, that the Debtor was clearly

HLI Creditor Trust v. Metal Technologies Woodstock Corp. (In re Hayes Lemmerz International, Inc.)

339 B.R. 97 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Mar 6, 2006

The remaining 12 invoices, which were paid by Check Number 9897, are clearly outside the normal range established during the parties business relationship, and the Court finds and concludes that the portion of the eighth … An additional $40,974.64 of goods provided by Defendant does not qualify for the new value defense because the goods were provided prior to any preferential transfer against which the new value could be credited. .Pursuant

In Re Heffernan

242 B.R. 812 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Connecticut · Dec 27, 1999

Of their total indebtedness of $298,825.85, the debtors have established that $22,475.00, owed to American Express, was incurred principally for WH’s business travel expenses. … Based on prior years’ experience, the debtors have budgeted a monthly amount of $116.16 to establish a reserve to cover the expected deficiency for the current year.

Colemichael Investments, L.L.C. v. Burke (In Re Burke)

405 B.R. 626 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 10, 2009

A fiduciary relation qualifies under § 523(a)(4) only if it “imposes real duties in advance of the breach.... ” Marchiando, 13 F.3d at 1116 . … A review of the evidence in this matter leads the Court to conclude that ColeMichael was clearly injured by Burke’s conduct.

A.G. Campbell & Co. v. Chemical Separations Corp. (In re Chemical Separations Corp.)

29 B.R. 240 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Tennessee · Apr 14, 1983

Plaintiff’s motion to amend is clearly more limited in scope than the amendments sought in both Keller and New York Casualty Co. … This court declines to fashion a judicial exception to Tenn.Code Ann. § 29-6-101(2) (1980) immunizing the removal out of the state of a debtor’s inventory property.

In re Washington Mutual, Inc.

485 B.R. 510 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Dec 19, 2012

Cruachem, Ltd., 772 F.Supp. 1458, 1471-72 (D.Del.1991) (holding that the ownership of a Delaware subsidiary in the taxing state, standing alone, does not qualify as a continuous and systematic contact to meet the due process … Oregon responds that the Quill Court established a bright-line physical presence requirement only with respect to sales and use taxes and not corporate excise tax.

Stephen C Jenkins

United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 20, 2020

the homestead status of property.42 In addition to establishing the existence of a present possessory right or interest in the property at issue, the homestead claimant must also establish the “homestead” nature of the … In the Debtor’s case, the testimony was clear that, while the Debtor and the Jenkins Children clearly agreed to and effectuated a transfer of the Tremont Property to the Jenkins Children, they also clearly agreed to the

In Re Evans

413 B.R. 315 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · Aug 23, 2009

Additional amounts may be claimed if the debtor has a qualifying dependent or is a disabled veteran. Va.Code Ann. § 34^, § 34-4.1. … Trustee established that the respondent acted as a petition preparer and collected a fee of $700 from the debtors.

Staats v. Harper (In Re Harper)

132 B.R. 349 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 4, 1991

Clearly, this raises questions as to whether the debtor received fair consideration for the Transfer. Yet another telling badge of fraud is that the Transfer was made between husband and wife. … According to the defendants, the debtor transferred his Interest to his wife to help her qualify for an equity-based loan.

SCHWARTZER v. PISANELLI BICE, PLLC

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Nevada · Oct 20, 2023

Accordingly, GFSI has failed to provide evidence to establish a genuine dispute. … “The work- product rule is not a privilege but a qualified immunity protecting from discovery documents and tangible things prepared by a party or his representative in anticipation of litigation.” Admiral Ins. Co. v.

B&G Futures Inc. and Dan-Bunkering (America) Inc.

United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 23, 2021

Dan-Bunkering argues that although the amount of the debt between B&G may be disputed, a debt clearly exists and therefore PFL qualifies as a petitioning creditor. … The findings in the state court ruling clearly shows that B&G’s liability for any debt to PFL is disputed. PFL did not establish that B&G is liable on a debt outside these disputed claims.

Cooper v. California Consolidated Enterprises, Inc. (In Re Carolina Motor Express, Inc.)

84 B.R. 979 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 16, 1988

The Court also noted that while the ICC is “free to change its policies, [it] is not free to change a clearly established rule of law.” Id., at p. 58,020. In Cooper v. California Consolidated Enterprises, Inc. … While the former question clearly does involve the expertise of the ICC, the latter does not. 483 F.Supp. at 281 .