Case law

In Re Thymewood Apartments, Ltd.

129 B.R. 505 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 28, 1991

Retroactivity Under Florida Law Generally Florida law establishes that a newly enacted law applies only prospectively unless the legislature clearly indicates otherwise. Walker & La Berge Inc., v. … From a reading of the entire agreement the parties clearly did not intend to separate the rents from the underlying property.

Keilig v. Massachusetts Higher Education Assistance Corp. (In Re LaFlamme)

188 B.R. 867 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Hampshire · Oct 31, 1995

The recent trend of the United States Supreme Court has clearly been to restrict courts to the literal language of a statute, unless a court can find that the literal interpretation is absurd in its result or that there are … He was also ordered to pay these student loans that were obtained by the debt- or on her signature alone since her husband had defaulted in the past on a student loan and would not be qualified himself to obtain such a loan

In Re Coala, Inc.

182 B.R. 887 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Alabama · May 24, 1995

While the corporate veil clearly may be pierced to subject the assets of individual stockholders to the payment of corporate obligations, the legal basis for subjecting the assets of the corporation to the satisfaction of … As stated by the Supreme Court of Alabama: The doctrine is well established, and obtains both in law and equity, that a corporation is a distinct entity, to be considered separate and apart from the individuals who compose

Nagel Precision Inc. v. RnD Engineering, LLC (In re RnD Engineering, LLC)

546 B.R. 738 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 1, 2016

According to Eby, the assembly drawings clearly show a one sided plate design, a one way clutch and a mechanical linkage between the movement of the tooling and the indexing of the tape. … To be sure, the evidence clearly shows that Digue and RnD competed with Nagel for business after December, 2011.

Robbins v. Haynes (In re Haynes)

549 B.R. 677 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. South Carolina · Apr 8, 2016

Once a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden then shifts to the debtor defendant to offer credible evidence to satisfactorily explain his conduct. Id. … The evidence indicates that elements (1), (2), and (3) are clearly met.

Bonapfel v. United States (In Re All American of Ashburn, Inc.)

156 B.R. 696 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia · Mar 10, 1993

The Court concludes that the tax claims that were originally filed timely and that are simply restated in the 1991 Proof of Claim for convenience are clearly not time barred. … Even if an untimely filed proof of claim for taxes does not qualify as an amendment, the Court may look to five factors enunciated in In re Miss Glamour Coat, Inc., 80-2 U.S.T.C. CCH ¶ 9737 (S.D.N.Y.

In Re Harnischfeger Industries, Inc.

293 B.R. 650 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · May 15, 2003

As - this issue was clearly raised prior to the execution of the Scheduling Order and the parties took discovery on it, Beloit Austria was clearly on notice of a defense of setoff. … Claimants who seek payment ahead of other unsecured claims bear the burden of establishing that their claim qualifies for priority status.

Giuliano v. U.S. Nursing Corp. (In Re Lexington Healthcare Group, Inc.)

339 B.R. 570 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Feb 2, 2006

USNC contends that this information is necessary in order to establish the Trustee’s standing pursuant to section 544(b). … “The Complaint clearly satisfies the requirement of Rules 8 and 9(b)....

Crews Lake Road & Bridge District v. Pineview Estates, Inc. (In re Pineview Estates, Inc.)

57 B.R. 483 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Jan 2, 1986

The District was established for the purpose of creating a tax base in order to service a bond issue sold to the public. … Clearly, only the taxpayer/property owner has standing to challenge taxation of his property. City of Sebring v. Wolf, 141 So. 736 (Fla.1932).

Forrest v. Bressler (In Re Bressler)

387 B.R. 446 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · May 15, 2008

Although such loans are nondischargeable, unless “undue hardship” standard under section 523(a)(8) were sought and established, the schedules clearly require information on student loans, and do not provide an option of nondisclosure … For the above-stated reasons, Bressler is denied a discharge pursuant to section 727(a)(4) because of certain material omissions in his filings, and because the multitude of omissions clearly establish a reckless disregard

Webster Bank, National Ass'n v. Contos (In Re Contos)

417 B.R. 557 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 29, 2009

The burden of proof required to establish an exception to the discharge of a debt is a preponderance of the evidence. Grogan v. … Based on the Debtors’ 2005 federal income tax return, however, that amount was clearly false and substantially greater than that represented on their income tax return.

Stephens v. Morrison (In Re Morrison)

450 B.R. 734 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Tennessee · May 27, 2011

[KJnowledge that legal rights are being violated is insufficient to establish malice.” Prime Fin’l. Servs. v. … The contract very clearly set forth what Morrison agreed to do in exchange for the $128,871 Stephens paid him.

Kessel v. Kessel (In Re Kessel)

261 B.R. 902 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Texas · Apr 20, 2001

These support payments undertaken by DANIEL WESLEY KESSEL, Paying Party, are intended to qualify as contractual alimony as that term is defined in section 71(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1985 (“the Code”), as amended … However, the basis for this valuation was never clearly articulated by either part}'.

In Re Mirant Corp.

332 B.R. 139 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas · Sep 21, 2005

Second, Debtors also challenge the premise that Kern River qualifies as a lost volume seller. … Does Kern River Qualify as a Lost Volume Seller?

Graham v. Paugh, Jr.

United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. West Virginia · Feb 6, 2023

Once the court establishes that the services and/ or money, for example, was obtained by false pretenses or misrepresentation, then “any debt” arising therefrom is excepted from discharge. Id. at 219. … Therefore, the record clearly establishes that the Defendant misrepresented himself as a licensed Contractor. Additionally, the Defendant knew his representations to the Plaintiff were false.

In re City of Detroit

524 B.R. 147 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · Dec 31, 2014

Owen addressed whether a municipality can assert a common law qualified immunity defense to a § 1983 claim. … Indeed, nothing in the opinion suggests that denying a qualified immunity defense to a § 1983 claim is a matter of necessity because the Fourteenth Amendment establishes a right to damages.

Deborah J. Piazza, as Chapter 7 Trustee of Poonam v. Keswani

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Mar 16, 2021

Piazza was appointed chapter 7 trustee for the Debtor's estate and qualified for and accepted that appointment. … As support for the latter request, the Debtor asserts that “no proof has surfaced from Deborah Piazza establishing which creditors she paid the money to.” Id. ¶ 14.

In Re Val W. Poterek & Sons, Inc.

169 B.R. 896 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 19, 1994

In the dismissal order, it was found that Goodmark did not qualify as a petitioning creditor under § 303(b) because it was a debtor, not a creditor, of Poterek & Sons. … On the trial record, it was established that $5,000.00 was actually paid to counsel for movants.

In Re Sheehan Memorial Hospital

380 B.R. 299 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. New York · Dec 21, 2007

In the present instance, however, a previously qualified firm lost its status due to the apparently unexpected departure of an associate attorney. … Clearly, the debtor lacked any ability to make timely and full payment of its overwhelming priority claims.

Media House Productions, Inc. v. Amari (In re Amari)

483 B.R. 836 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 27, 2012

A “false pretense” is established or fostered *847 willfully, knowingly and by design; it is not the result of inadvertence. Id. … The term “acting in a fiduciary capacity” does not qualify the word “embezzlement” in § 523(a)(4), so any debt resulting from embezzlement falls within the exception.