Case law

In Re Terex Corp.

70 B.R. 996 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 18, 1987

Expert testimony is admissible— If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to *1001 determine a fact in issue[;] a witness qualified as an expert by … Barker, 553 F.2d 1013, 1024 (6th Cir.1977) (clearly erroneous standard).

Schaefer v. Ballantyne (In Re Ballantyne)

166 B.R. 681 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Mar 16, 1994

The creditor must prove the facts establishing each element by a preponderance of the evidence. Grogan v. Garner, 498 U.S. 279 , 111 S.Ct. 654 , 112 L.Ed.2d 755 (1991). … He mentioned Schaefer’s initial $25,000 investment in Centsible Enterprises and then responded affirmatively to the court’s suggestion that Schaefer’s guaranty of the joint debt to the bank might also qualify.

In Re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group Inc.

120 B.R. 724 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Nov 14, 1990

The CBOT, on the other hand, often grapples with these issues, in the context of, inter alia, Rule 252, and clearly possesses far greater expertise. These issues are clearly within the business entrusted to the CBOT. … Although the Commission could not decide whether the Commodity Exchange Act immunized conduct from the anti-trust laws, the Commission’s determination of whether the Exchange’s rules were violated required a factual determination

Lynn v. Continental Bank, N.A. (In Re Murchison)

154 B.R. 909 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas · Jun 3, 1993

Meanwhile, Clark Pipe clearly voiced the Fifth Circuit’s concern for banks’ ability to enforce their loan agreements according to their terms without fear of equitable subordination. … Security State Bank (In re Burner), 109 B.R. 216, 226-27 (Bankr.W.D.Tex.1989) (“the control element necessary to qualify a bank as an insider must be such that the debtor was the mere alter ego or instrumentality of the bank

Roy Nielsen Hafen

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Utah · Jun 3, 2022

causes of action.”21 As such, only the Trustee in the instant clearly possessed the § 544 rights and remedies, and possibly other rights and claims, which are very similar to those that the Creditors seek to assert under … As such, this claim has violated the Debtor’s discharge injunction and does not qualify for the § 524(e) safe harbor as there has not been a showing that establishing the Debtor’s liability is a prerequisite to recovery

In Re Bill Heard Enterprises, Inc.

400 B.R. 795 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Alabama · Jan 12, 2009

Although counsel in each of the pending adversary proceedings is qualified, experienced and capable of conducting this litigation, the Court believes that counsel for the plaintiffs in the Kettell adversary proceeding should … Both parties have submitted numerous briefs addressing the legal issues before the Court and while both are clearly knowledgeable of the applicable law, the Court does note than in more than one instances Kratzel, as well

Applebaum v. Henderson (In Re Henderson)

134 B.R. 147 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 10, 1991

R.: Omission of the information included in this Exhibit does not qualify as a false oath regarding the Debtor’s finances, since the information concerns primarily checks written on the Livery and MRS accounts and other financial … In any event, the discrepancy is so small as to clearly be immaterial.

In re Ace Track Co.

556 B.R. 887 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Sep 13, 2016

But ■there is nothing in the Stay Relief Order that says that clearly. … The Bankruptcy Code clearly allows for the stay to be applied by motion.

Prime Healthcare Management, Inc. v. Valley Health System (In Re Valley Health System)

429 B.R. 692 · United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. California · Apr 8, 2010

In this case, PHH is a Delaware corporation qualified to do business in California. 65 PHH’s sole shareholder is PHH, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company qualified to do business in California. … PHH is qualified to do business in California.

In Re Roberts

46 B.R. 815 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Utah · Feb 4, 1985

Indeed, there are a number of courts which have ruled that the simple fact of failing to disclose any relationship with the debtor, as the Bankruptcy Rules clearly require, is sufficient to constitute a denial of fees. … These elements do not, however, establish an exclusive standard.

1200 Buena Vista Condominiums v. Young (In Re Young)

467 B.R. 792 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 30, 2012

Debtor’s signature is clearly written on the deed. (Id.) The deed is notarized, and was properly recorded in Allegheny County. (Id.) … However, it is well established that “[f]iling a bankruptcy petition on the eve of foreclosure does not necessarily constitute bad faith.”

Smith v. Price (In Re Price)

124 B.R. 791 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Missouri · Feb 19, 1991

Smith would invest up to $50,000 in an agency to be established by Mr. Price, and in exchange would receive 40% of the profits from such agency. … Smith’s checks from clearing; thus, debtors clearly intended and expected Mr. Smith to suffer monetary harm as the result of their action.

Aletha K Barsir

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maryland · Jul 22, 2020

The Code also allows a state to opt out of this federal exemption scheme and establish its own. See 11 U.S.C. § 522(b)(2). Maryland is one such state that has opted out of the federal scheme, see MD. CODE ANN., CTS. … The Bankruptcy Court concluded that the Payment Provision and Exemption Provision do conflict with each other and that the Payment Provision controls because it “is clearly the more specific statute.” Id. at 217–218.

Oregon v. Roman Catholic Archbishop (In Re Roman Catholic Archbishop)

345 B.R. 686 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Oregon · Jul 20, 2006

The Fund established hereby is intended to be perpetual. … That is clearly not the position debtor takes with regard to the use of the income from the fund. I conclude that debtor, through its predecessor the 1909 corporation, was the set-tlor of the fund.

Maurer v. Maurer (In Re Maurer)

267 B.R. 639 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 27, 2001

John and Heidi had problems qualifying for the loan. These problems resulted in the initial denial of the August loan application. … Accordingly, the court finds that the plaintiffs have met their burden to establish a resulting trust. III. The Policy Proceeds are Held in a Constructive Trust for the Benefit of the Maurer Children.

Lewis v. Lewis (In Re Lewis)

39 B.R. 842 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. New York · May 8, 1984

The difference is that the Judges bill establishes a Federal floor, much like the recent Consumer Credit Protection Act, which established a Federal floor on wage exemptions, made them 75- *850 percent exempt, regardless … Lewis in contempt, if not clearly superseded by the second Supreme Court order, was one which provided compensation for loss and, hence, is not within the terms of subsection 523(a)(7).

Hein v. Bobbitt (In Re Hein)

60 B.R. 769 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. California · May 16, 1986

period between the imposition of the automatic stay upon the filing of the Chapter 11 proceeding on March 17, 1981 and the payment of the undisputed portion of the amount of the loan, he lost the opportunity to invest in qualified … The compensation which Section 1124(2)(C) considers clearly must arise out of reasonable reliance by a creditor on a contractual provision or other related law.

In Re Kaplan Breslaw Ash, LLC

264 B.R. 309 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Jun 20, 2001

The express language of each of the two documents clearly shows that Sterling did not intend to be bound until further documents were signed and executed. … Giving a mortgage plainly qualifies as such. 68 .

Elaine M. Mills

United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · May 31, 2019

In order to assess whether and when a manufactured home qualifies as real property, the court must look instead to state law. … It is not procedurally improper to address the plan’s treatment of secured claims through the confirmation hearing format, as that is clearly how the Rules, Code and Plan intended such questions to be treated.

Montano v. First Light Federal Credit Union (In Re Montano)

398 B.R. 47 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Mexico · Oct 15, 2008

Civ.3d § 1775 (hereafter, “FPP Civ.3d”)(A suit predominantly seeking money damages does not qualify under Rule 23(b)(2). … CONCLUSION The Plaintiffs have established the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b) such that this action can proceed as a class action.