Case law

In Re Johnson

36 B.R. 54 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Mexico · Jan 11, 1984

The Bank argues that this is not a pension, but mere savings, and does not qualify under § 522(d)(10)(E). … However, a stock bonus plan is clearly ex-emptible under that section, if necessary for support of the debtor, unless it exhibits the characteristics enumerated in 522(d)(10)(E)(i) thru (iii).

Olson v. Potter (In Re Potter)

88 B.R. 843 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 31, 1988

Moreover, it is the possibility of prosection, not the judge’s assessment of the likelihood of such prosecution, which establishes a valid claim. … Clearly a debtor can assert a valid Fifth Amendment privilege under section 727(a)(6) of the Code and receive a discharge unless the debtor has been granted immunity.

In Re Hall

151 B.R. 412 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Michigan · Feb 18, 1993

The amount of the individual retirement plan, although not clearly known, is at least $14,000. 11 (Trans, at 159-62.) V. DISCUSSION A. The Pension Plan. … The Internal Revenue Code establishes certain criteria for a pension plan to be “tax qualified”.

In re City of Stockton

526 B.R. 35 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. California · Feb 27, 2015

The PERL § 20574 termination lien qualifies as a “statutory lien” under the Bankruptcy Code. … Sovereign immunity is abrogated with respect to § 545. 11 U.S.C. § 106 (a)(1).

Rhodes v. Stewart (In Re Rhodes)

14 B.R. 629 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Tennessee · Sep 22, 1981

Congress clearly has preempted state law with regard to the exemption of property interests in bankruptcy cases as the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has held in a pertinent recent decision, Cheese-man v. … Property interests immune from process generally are not covered by state exemption statutes which need exempt from execution only property subject to execution.

In Re Francisco

204 B.R. 799 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Dec 6, 1996

None of those funds were ever held in another retirement plan established by an employer. … Clearly the Statute which authorized the establishment of the IRA accounts, while it makes a reference to ERISA legislation, does not contain any of the specific requirements necessary before a Plan is an ERISA qualified

In Re Braniff, Inc.

218 B.R. 628 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 23, 1998

Only ERISA qualified plans? Any benefit plans established voluntarily by the employer? Federal or state-mandated employee benefits, such as worker’s compensation insurance payments? … (In re Jet Florida Systems, Inc.), 80 B.R. 544, 547 (S.D.Fla.1987), and a clearly established plan underwritten and operated by a recognized third-party insurer is not required, In re Saco Local Development Corp., 711 F.2d

In Re Sae Young Westmont-Chicago, L.L.C.

276 B.R. 888 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · May 2, 2002

In 1997, Debtor established five separate land trusts to acquire leasehold interests in five buildings at the former world headquarters of Sears & Roebuck Company (the “properties”). … However, the present case is clearly distinguishable. First, there has been no compulsory process used to require the state to appear in this forum. In fact, the State only appeared here to challenge jurisdiction.

In Re Express One International, Inc.

217 B.R. 207 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Texas · Jan 12, 1998

The Court was more impressed with the testimony of Sidney Hurst, who seemed extraordinarily qualified in this field. Mr. … The testimony clearly established that the parties were in constant contact during the work on the aircraft and Express One’s internal documents demonstrated that it felt that the work was progressing on schedule and certainly

Thorp Credit & Thrift Co. v. Pommerer (In Re Pommerer)

10 B.R. 935 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Minnesota · May 7, 1981

If an intention to further qualify the quality or the quantity of exempt property made subject to the right granted a debtor by subsection (f) existed, it would have been clearly stated. … more than simply discharging debts and establishing exemptions.

In Re Laube

152 B.R. 260 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Mar 16, 1993

Clearly, a truck cab is not a building, condominium, house trailer or cooperative. … Laube’s testimony at the hear *263 ing and his conduct since March 1, 1992, clearly establishes his intent to maintain his truck cab as his homestead.

Roberts v. Harris (In Re Harris)

101 B.R. 210 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. California · May 31, 1989

California law has consistently and unequivocally recognized that although a trustor may create a valid trust naming himself as beneficiary, the assets in the trust are not immune from the claims of creditors. … The Harris' clearly qualify as "owners” under this section. 3 . § 704.710.

Matter of Schatz Federal Bearings Co., Inc.

5 B.R. 543 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Jul 29, 1980

The plan was established by the debtor as the plan sponsor, within the meaning of § 3(16)(B), ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (16)(B). … The individual plaintiffs are clearly entitled to sue under 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (a)(1), (3), (4). Had Congress intended to confer the right to sue on an employee organization it would have said so.

In Re Idalski

123 B.R. 222 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · Jan 23, 1991

Yet, if § 541(c)(2) is read as including only state law, the fate of ERISA-qualified plans in bankruptcy will vary from state to state, a result which is clearly inconsistent with the congressional desire for uniformity in … is clearly permissible so long as the plan complies with the requirements specified in ERISA.

In Re Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

273 B.R. 795 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California · Feb 7, 2002

Sovereign Immunity Implications 1. … The potential harm from antitrust violations, for example, might not be imminent and clearly identifiable, but the court does not believe Congress intended to eviscerate all *807 antitrust laws for debtors in bankruptcy (

In Re Blurton

334 B.R. 602 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Tennessee · Dec 13, 2005

Applying the “benefit to the estate” test to this case, it is clear that Teel’s attorneys fees do not qualify as an administrative expense. … Clearly, the entire amount of the money the Blurtons paid for the appraisals of the property can be payed as an administrative expense.

Braniff, Inc. v. Toren (In Re Braniff, Inc.)

110 B.R. 980 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 21, 1990

As part of the Plan, a liquidating trust, BRNF, was established by Airways to distribute funds to certain of its creditors. … The statutory language will control, however, unless the express legislative intent clearly contradicts the statutory language. Consumer Product Safety Commission v.

In Re Automotive Professionals, Inc.

370 B.R. 161 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 12, 2007

It argues that the State has sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution from such orders and that the Director is considered the State for purposes of sovereign immunity. … The court need not decide whether the Director stands in the shoes of the State for purposes of sovereign immunity because the State has no such immunity. In Central Virginia Community College v.

In Re McCollum

287 B.R. 750 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Missouri · Aug 29, 2002

The Code also *753 allows a state to opt out of this scheme and establish its own. … Had Congress intended to allow an exemption for the proceeds traceable to the property enumerated in section 522(d)(10), it clearly could *754 have done so.

Dietz v. Barth (In re Barth)

485 B.R. 919 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Minnesota · Feb 11, 2013

However, if any profits are distributed to a qualified member, the payments must be equal for all qualified members. … members. 2 Minnesota clearly has the authority to define property rights with respect to property within its jurisdiction and which is subject to Minnesota state law.