Case law

Check Control, Inc. v. Anderson (In Re Anderson)

181 B.R. 943 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Minnesota · May 16, 1995

The courts, however, have rejected this position across the board — at least when it is stated so baldly and without a qualifying rationale. … Stat. § 609.535 11 — is not sufficient to establish nondischargeability.

Matter of Concrete Products, Inc.

208 B.R. 1015 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Georgia · Jul 2, 1996

I also concluded that an action for damages was inappropriate as the Trustee had absolute immunity to the extent that this Court ruled on the Trustee’s various actions. … Norman and subsequent cases clearly hold that excessive, redundant or unnecessary hours should be excluded and the court must deduct for time spent on discrete and unsuccessful claims.

In Re Tristar Fire Protection, Inc.

466 B.R. 392 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 8, 2012

Far from showing confusion by Local 704 over the Debtor’s economic position, the evidence in the record overwhelmingly shows that Local 704 clearly understood the Debtor’s position, but just did not like it. … The evidence establishes that the lockout was justified by legitimate and substantial operational needs, which Local 704 has not overcome by evidence of an illegal motive.

Chaudhry v. Usoskin (In Re Usoskin)

56 B.R. 805 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York · Nov 27, 1985

Finally, even where the debtor has failed to keep and preserve the records necessary to complete disclosure he may still qualify for a discharge where he can justify his failure. … Their purpose was clearly to avoid a motion to dismiss regardless of the merits of their claim.

McHenry v. McHenry (In Re McHenry)

131 B.R. 669 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Jun 9, 1989

it is nondischargeable under § 523(a)(5) since the state court clearly never decided that issue. … He He He He H< He The Order of July 7,1980 [of the Bankruptcy Court] was clearly incorrect in its application of an Indiana Statute.

Lease-A-Fleet, Inc. v. Morse Operations, Inc. (In Re Lease-A-Fleet, Inc.)

141 B.R. 853 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 9, 1992

The payments received by Lauderhill from Lindo therefore qualify as preferential payments under § 547(b) of the Code. … Lauderhill clearly did continue to supply vehicles to the Debtor pre-petition, as well as post-petition.

In re Ajay Sports, Inc.

370 B.R. 703 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · Jun 12, 2007

Finally, a third basis where Michigan courts have found a cause of action for discharge is “when the reason for a discharge was the employee’s exercise of a right conferred by a well-established legislative enactment.” … Although Butterball addressed the third basis for a retaliatory discharge cause of action described by the Suchodol-ski court, the Butterball court’s analysis and holdings clearly encompassed all three exceptions.

In Re Crystal Apparel, Inc.

220 B.R. 816 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Apr 16, 1998

It is well established that court approval is required for assumption. See e.g. In re Thinking Machs. … Apparently they offer this evidence to establish a course of conduct by the Debtors or to establish what the law is or to try to gain sympathy by measuring their situation against someone else's.

In Re Krueger

457 B.R. 465 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. South Carolina · Sep 19, 2011

Whether an obligation is in the nature of support and qualifies as a DSO is a question of federal law. Id. … The Code establishes a burden-shifting framework for proving the validity and amount of a claim.

In Re Rothman

206 B.R. 99 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 10, 1997

The wife has a modest income which would clearly not be *108 sufficient to support herself, not to mention four children in addition. … The instant case is clearly atypical. The Debtor would attribute this “irregularity” to Mozino’s excessive opposition to his efforts.

In Re Dow Corning Corp.

194 B.R. 147 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · Apr 2, 1996

It argued that “a denial of the Application would unjustly disadvantage the Debtors by denying it the assistance of the most uniquely qualified financial advisor, and by unduly burdening the estate ... with additional and … On the one hand, the TCC clearly does not approve of the decision to oust the attorney-members.- On the other, it argues the Court should have done it sooner.

In Re Luchenbill

112 B.R. 204 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · Mar 8, 1990

Consolidation of two estates into one can be effectuated by use of Bankruptcy Rule 1015(b) (although it is an open question whether a corporate debtor and its sole stockholder qualify thereunder). … Luchenbill has easily established that there has been unreasonable delay by the debtors. More difficult is proving that the delay has been “prejudicial to creditors.” It is apparent from Mr.

Sullivan v. Glenn (In re Glenn)

502 B.R. 516 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 15, 2013

Michael’s counsel was clearly well versed in the application of Illinois law to this issue, and targeted his questioning of Michael accordingly. … If the third party lies about his assets in order to qualify to be the guarantor, then the borrower will have, in effect, obtained 'money ... by ... false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud,’ even if she did

In Re Westerfield

403 B.R. 545 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Tennessee · Mar 13, 2009

The statutes are clearly aimed at preventing discharge of any amounts owed on a domestic support obligation. See generally 5 & 6 Keith M. Lundin, Chapter 13 Bankruptcy ¶ 440.1, ¶ 441.1 & ¶ 519.1. … A timely filed proof of claim establishes the status of the claim until a party in interest files an objection to the claim. 11 U.S.C. § 502 (a); Fed. R. Bankr.P. 3001(f). This rule applies even though Ms.

In Re BMW Group I, Ltd.

168 B.R. 731 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Oklahoma · May 27, 1994

If the evidence is credible, the court cannot confirm the sale for less than the newly-established fair market price. … Such a process clearly violates both the principles of purchase and the Code requirements.

In re: Cyma Cleaning Contractors Inc.

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Puerto Rico · Oct 27, 2023

for Sub Chapter V eligibility by and through being an affiliate of an already qualified 5 Debtors (the ‘Affiliate Exception’)” (id., p. 9). … The only authority cited by the 22 Debtor is with respect to eligibility being established as of the petition date.

Perez Mujica v. FirstBank Puerto Rico (In Re Perez Mujica)

457 B.R. 177 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 8, 2011

To qualify for this particular exception to the automatic stay, a creditor must satisfy the following three (3) requirements: (i) an act to perfect; (ii) an interest in property; and (3) under the circumstances in which the … Moreover, the title study dated October 29, 2010 (Docket Nos. 31 & 34, Exhibit I) clearly indicated that the document (deed # 21 which was presented to the Property Registry on April 10, 1996) which provided the chain of

In re Templeton

538 B.R. 578 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Alabama · Aug 6, 2015

The creditors contend further that for those claims filed preconfir-mation, the plan language that provided the debtors would pay some dividend toward unsecured claims qualified as an “unconditional promise in writing signed … “Any such concerns over the notice necessary before altering the rights of third parties are inapplicable here, where the Plaintiffs seeking relief from the confirmation orders are the debtors themselves, and they clearly

KMK Factoring, L.L.C. v. McKnew (In Re McKnew)

270 B.R. 593 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · Nov 2, 2001

McKnew asserted that “the actual amount of the venture capital commitment was not pre-established.” Id. … Such a conversion qualifies as willful and malicious under § 523(a)(6).”); Call Fed. Credit Union v.

James Edward Parker

United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. North Carolina · Dec 12, 2019

As mentioned above, the exemptions claimed by the debtor become established within definitive time frames. … Stat. § 1C-1604 and its requirement of continued use of the residence to qualify for the homestead exemption.