Case law

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.

In Re Cronkleton

18 B.R. 792 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 23, 1982

One of the bases for objection to the confirmation of the Chapter 13 plans proposed in these cases is the failure of the debtors to qualify for Chapter 13 relief. … While the debtors, Lawrence and Coral Cronkleton, have attempted to argue that they are only liable for a pro rata share of the $570,955.74 obligation to WPCA, the notes executed by them clearly establish otherwise.

In Re Suntastic USA, Inc.

269 B.R. 846 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Arizona · Sep 17, 2001

In either event, the net result would be an increase in the pro rata distribution available to other creditors — clearly a benefit to the estate. … The only basis for payment of these claimants, other than consent, is whether they can individually establish entitlement to a surcharge.

Forbes v. Lucas (In Re Lucas)

100 B.R. 969 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Tennessee · Jun 9, 1989

The Supreme Court concluded that ERISA preempted state anti-assignment or anti-alienation of ERISA-qualified welfare plan benefits. … Holiday does not argue that it is immune from this suit under ERISA. See Mackey, 486 U.S. at-, 108 S.Ct. at 2186 , 100 L.Ed.2d at 845 , et seq. 2 .

Jordan

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Dec 12, 2025

The court held that the trustee was protected by qualified immunity because her actions were not “plainly incompetent and did not violate clearly established law.”96 Further, her actions in limiting the tenant’s access … statutory rights.98 The Trustee’s actions were taken in furtherance of his duties as a trustee and did not violate any clearly established law, so he is entitled to qualified immunity.

In Re Massey

225 B.R. 887 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · Sep 17, 1998

Oliver as tenants by the entireties “were likewise owned and held by them as tenants by the entireties,” and were thereby immune from the claims of Mr. Oliver’s creditors; and that, accordingly, a gift from Mr. … The court also explained that, unless personal property was acquired through the rents, profits, or proceeds of entireties property, "there must be an instrument of conveyance clearly establishing the right of survivorship

Bank of Louisville v. Morris (In Re Morris)

49 B.R. 123 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Kentucky · Apr 2, 1985

Such finding will clearly establish whether section 109(f) is applicable in a subsequent filing, allows all interested parties to know the collateral effect of the dismissal, and minimizes imposing of the automatic stay on … Section 109(f) clearly qualifies its restrictions. Thus all dismissals within 180 days, even though technically based on noncompliance of a Confirmation Order, are not a bar to a new petition.

Rakozy v. Diversified Turnkey Construction Co. (In Re Western States Drywall, Inc.)

145 B.R. 661 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Idaho · Sep 29, 1992

immunity. … The employees needed the amount of backwages [sic] owed for the claim amount and, consistent with established policy, that amount was not disclosed to them during the investigation.

In Re Crum

414 B.R. 103 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas · Feb 20, 2009

The parties have stipulated that the Group SAMA account is not a “qualified” retirement account; it is clearly property of the estate. … Crum clearly failed to satisfy the requirements of the exemption.

In Re Las Vegas Monorail Co.

429 B.R. 770 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Nevada · Apr 26, 2010

LVMC is clearly not a State, Commonwealth, District, or Territory. The only included term that might fit is “municipality.” … government functions qualify for [tax] exemption.”); Rev.

In Re Banderas

236 B.R. 837 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 23, 1998

The purpose of establishing requirements to qualify profit sharing plans for a tax exemption is to insure that profit sharing plans are operated for the welfare of employees in general. See McClintock-Trunkey Co. v. … Clearly, the Profit Sharing Plan does not qualify for the tax exemption because the Plan was not formed by the PC for the exclusive benefit of the employees since there were no employees.

In Re LandAmerica Financial Group, Inc.

412 B.R. 800 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 15, 2009

Millard and LES had the option to utilize a "qualified escrow" or to establish a "qualified trust" pursuant to subsection (g)(3) of the Treasury Regulation. … The plain, unambiguous language of the Exchange Agreements clearly establishes that it was not the intent of LES or Millard to create an express trust.

Graham v. United States (In Re Malmart Mortgage Co.)

109 B.R. 1 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 15, 1989

its immunity to suit by filing a proof of claim against the estate. … But Randall itself does not clearly set forth its own rationale, so its bearing on the present case is unclear.

Hawks Holdings, LLC v. Kalinowski (In Re Kalinowski)

449 B.R. 797 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 8, 2011

The Tenth Circuit had little trouble finding that the New Mexico statute “clearly imposes a fiduciary duty upon contractors who have been advanced money pursuant to construction contracts.” Id. … Often the licensee and the qualifying party are the same person; however, because qualifying party certificates can only be issued to individuals (see Title 14, N.M.A.C. § 14.6.3.8(E)(providing that qualifying party certificates

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of 360networks (USA) Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission of California (In Re 360networks (USA) Inc.)

316 B.R. 797 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Nov 10, 2004

founders’ concept of States’ immunity. … To establish ... uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.” U.S. Const. Art I. § 8 cl. 4. 5 . It also cited California v.

Decalcomania Mfg. Corp. v. City of Camden (In Re Decalcomania Mfg. Corp.)

142 B.R. 670 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 19, 1990

New Jersey Turnpike Authority, 268 F.Supp. 568, 574 (D.N.J.1967) (counties and municipalities do not partake of the Eleventh Amendment immunity enjoyed by the states, although they clearly are public bodies and in many cases … Bankruptcy Code, then the Debtor, Decalcomania received “less than a reasonable equivalent value in exchange for such transfer” and that the debtor “became insolvent as a result of such transfer or obligation.” 7 In order to establish

Flynn v. Internal Revenue Service (In Re Flynn)

169 B.R. 1007 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Georgia · May 13, 1994

Russellville Production Credit Ass’n, 777 F.2d 1544, 1549 (11th Cir.1985) (finding the “established rule” to be that “punitive damages cannot be recovered from the United States or its agencies.”); Painter v. … The waiver of immunity in this case, however, is found in the Bankruptcy Code rather than any sort of generic “sue and be sued” provision, and the former Fifth Circuit clearly recognized that Congress could otherwise waive

Vieira v. Gaither (In re Gaither)

595 B.R. 201 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. South Carolina · Nov 29, 2018

Having established that a trustee may step into the shoes of the IRS and employ the collection powers available to it, the next issue before the Court is whether the FDCPA constitutes "applicable law" for purposes of § 544 … Specifically, the Court analyzed § 541(c)(2) to determine "whether an anti-alienation provision contained in an ERISA-qualified pension plan constitutes a restriction on transfer enforceable under 'applicable nonbankruptcy

Johnson v. Lindsey

16 B.R. 211 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Dec 2, 1981

There is no doubt that the filing of a petition in bankruptcy does not immunize a debtor from criminal prosecution. … It is well established, however, that the Bankruptcy Court will not permit the State to use criminal prosecution for the sole purpose of collecting a debt dischargeable in bankruptcy, or to use law enforcement as a collection

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Operation Open City, Inc. v. New York State Department of State (In Re Operation Open City, Inc.)

148 B.R. 184 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Dec 30, 1992

The State has not suffered any hardship in responding to the summary judgment motions, as an examination of the record reveals that there are no material facts in dispute 3 and the following discussion clearly illustrates … Given the following discussion, this Court need not consider whether a setoff, such as that which occurred in Town & Country and in the instant case, establishes an informal proof of claim which waives a State's immunity