Case law

Hetzler v. United States (In Re Hetzler)

262 B.R. 47 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 12, 2001

Most courts *51 agree that a document must first qualify as a return under federal income tax law in order to qualify as a return for purposes of section 523. … “Nothing in § 523(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code suggests that a document that does not qualify as a return under the Internal Revenue Code should nonetheless qualify as a return for purposes of bankruptcy discharge.”

Justice v. Ohio, Bureau of Workers' Compensation (In Re Justice)

224 B.R. 631 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 3, 1998

To establish ... uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States. U.S. Const, art. I, § 8, el. 4. … In an effort to override state sovereign immunity, § 106(a) of the Bankruptcy Code provides in pertinent part: Notwithstanding an assertion of sovereign immunity, sovereign immunity is abrogated as to a governmental unit

In Re Foster

217 B.R. 631 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Colorado · Aug 4, 1997

The Work-Product Doctrine “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. … It provides qualified, not absolute, protection which, like other qualified privileges, may be waived. Maertin v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 172 F.R.D. 143, 148 (D.N.J.1997).

In Re Tignor

21 B.R. 219 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · Jun 24, 1982

Although the Virginia Supreme Court has not passed directly on that issue, *223 dicta found in that court’s decisions coupled with federal bankruptcy policy, establish that exemption. … This contention is clearly wrong. This Court must respect exemptions created by the common law of Virginia. Ford at 573. Judge Hal J.

Grogan v. Southwest Textiles, Inc. (In Re Advance Glove Manufacturing Co.)

42 B.R. 489 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · Aug 22, 1984

The evidence clearly establishes that the expected distribution to unsecured creditors of the estate will be no more than 70% and perhaps as low as 37%. … A payment is insulated from preferential attack if the creditor establishes that he comes within any of these exceptions. “If a creditor can qualify under any one of the exceptions, then he is protected to that extent.

Vinci v. Town of Carmel (In Re Vinci)

108 B.R. 439 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Dec 19, 1989

Accordingly, the causes of action asserted in the plaintiffs’ complaint do not qualify as a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157 (b). … Additionally, the defendants’ motion for an order establishing their lien claims will also be denied, pending evidentiary proof to support these factual issues.

Colon v. Strawberry (In re Strawberry)

464 B.R. 443 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Florida · Jan 25, 2012

The Trustee asserts Charisse Strawberry is entitled to $800,000 from the deferred compensation funds pursuant to a Stipulated Qualified Domestic Relations Order (“QDRO”) that was entered on November 3, 2006 in the Circuit … Thus, this interpleader action is clearly related to the bankruptcy case and this Court has jurisdiction.

In Re Knowles

123 B.R. 428 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Jan 3, 1991

In Mackey , the Supreme Court held that a Georgia statute which purported to immunize funds in a 401-K plan from garnishment asserted by a creditor was invalid by virtue of the doctrine of federal preemption, based on § 514 … Stat. § 222.201 (1), may selectively opt back into the federal exemption scheme provided by § 522(d) of the Bankruptcy Code, which is a proposition with serious doubt, there is nothing in this record to establish that the

In Re Spencer

123 B.R. 858 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California · Jan 18, 1991

Clearly, the IRS could obtain the same information through some other, albeit more cumbersome, means. … The IRS has clearly established that there is a legitimate purpose for the investigation and that the information sought is relevant to that purpose.

In Re Lozano

84 B.R. 634 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Missouri · Apr 11, 1988

Two diamond rings and as to those items, clearly Beneficial Missouri’s lien is a non-possessory and non-purchase money lien. What the Court must determine is which items qualify for the avoidance provision. … Section 522(f)(2)(A) establishes nine categories of personal property that qualify for the avoidance. They are: 1. Household furnishings 2. Household goods 3. Wearing apparel 4. Appliances 5. Books 6. Animals 7.

Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. United States (In Re Mohawk Industries, Inc.)

55 B.R. 284 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 26, 1985

The Court agrees with the IRS to the extent that “[i]t is a well established principal of law that the United States is immune from suit except in those instances where it has specifically waived its sovereign immunity.” … Under either the Enochs exception or the traditional standards for invoking equitable jurisdiction, Mohawk must establish a likelihood of success on the merits. This it has failed to do.

Brandon v. Sherwood (In re Sann)

546 B.R. 840 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Montana · Feb 26, 2016

Standing trustees must satisfy the eligibility requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 321 , and qualify under 11 U.S.C. § 322 and 28 U.S.C. § 586 . Once appointed, the standing trustee-operating under the supervision of the U.S. … The establishment, maintenance, and supervision of the panel of bankruptcy trustees is the United States Trustee’s “primary function, and his most important contribution to the administration of the bankruptcy system.”

Winters National Bank & Trust Co. of Dayton v. Schear Group (In Re Schear Realty & Investment Co.)

25 B.R. 463 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 27, 1982

. § 1471 , as elaborated and qualified in this Court’s opinion in Benchic v. Century Entertainment Corp. [ 21 B.R. 160 ], Case No. 3-81-04024, Adv. No. 3-81-0242 and 3-81-0516 (December 7, 1982). … Before the decision in Northern Pipeline judicial immunity was no doubt complete protection until the jurisdiction statute was declared unconstitutional.

Cooper v. Osbourne (In Re Osbourne)

124 B.R. 726 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Kentucky · Sep 29, 1989

Therefore the courts have developed circumstances or “badges of fraud” to establish the requisite intent. … Osbourne filed bankruptcy and Barbara Osborne remained a non-debtor spouse, Osbourne contends that the marital property was immune from *729 Mr. Osbourne’s creditors.

Arid Waterproofing, Inc. v. Pennsylvania, Department of General Services (In Re Arid Waterproofing, Inc.)

175 B.R. 172 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 3, 1994

The debtor responds that the prerequisites for mandatory abstention have not been established, in that this is a core proceeding and the Board of Claims cannot timely adjudicate this litigation. … This adversary proceeding is simply a pre-petition contract action against the state, based upon nonbankruptcy law, and is clearly noncore. See, e.g., Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v.

In Re Irwin

293 B.R. 28 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Arizona · Apr 28, 2003

The purpose of so distinguishing motor homes from other motor vehicles is apparently limited to “special events,” which are exhibitions of new motor homes at a location other than the dealer’s established place of business … In light of the Legislature’s change of thinking, to hold that a motor home cannot be construed to be a mobile home or dwelling house for homestead purposes would be to elevate form over substance and would clearly not be

Gilbert v. Foy (In Re Foy)

164 B.R. 595 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 1, 1994

. § 1056 (d), but then proceeds in other sections to allow conduct which is clearly contrary to the meaning and purpose of the language used in that statute. … “IRC 401(a), 26 U.S.C. § 401 (k), outlines the requirements necessary to establish a qualified trust, i.e., a trust exempted for tax purposes.

James v. Draper (In Re James)

112 B.R. 687 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 1, 1990

Clearly, the Defendants are individuals, and are not, in themselves, “governmental *698 units.” … Congress clearly intended that § 362(a) would apply generally to governmental units.

Cumberland River Coal Co. v. United States Ex Rel. Department of Labor (In Re Blue Diamond Coal Co.)

163 B.R. 798 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Tennessee · Feb 4, 1994

sovereign immunity. … The intention of the DOL to release “all parties,” including Cumberland from whom it might recover, could not be more clearly expressed.

Berkelhammer v. Novella (In Re Berkelhammer)

279 B.R. 660 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Jun 13, 2002

Sovereign Immunity and Ex parte Young While the United States Supreme Court has in recent years clarified the expansive scope of the states’ sovereign immunity, it has continued also to recognize the validity of the Ex parte … No. 595, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (1977) at 125, U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1978, pp. 5963, 6086, and in light of that purpose the House and Senate Reports “clearly indicate that Congress intended that the section [525] not