Case law

Frost & Co. v. Smithey (In re Smithey)

474 B.R. 830 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Jul 6, 2012

On the other hand, reliance is not justifiable if the creditor blindly turns their eyes away from things which would have clearly *839 shown that any reliance on the debtor’s representations was misplaced. Id. … First, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(2)(A), the Defendant’s use of $200,000.00 in assets from Frost Roofing to accomplish a purchase of Frost Roofing qualifies as a nondischargeable debt.

Newman v. Johnson (In re Johnson)

473 B.R. 447 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Utah · May 29, 2012

He argues that §§ 523(a)(5) and (15) only apply to the specific parties named therein, that Newman is not his “former spouse,” and that because neither party was the legal spouse of the other, Newman does not qualify for … The factual scenario before the Court is distinguishable as in this case there is a State Court judgment clearly finding that the parties were married and implicitly spouses under Utah law.

Pollock v. Phillips (In re Phillips)

523 B.R. 846 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Dec 23, 2014

This admission establishes that the Probate Estate has no apparent interest in the VehL cles. … held that *859 Section 523(a)(4) clearly qualifies the term “defalcation” by “[t]he phrase ‘while acting in a fiduciary capacity.’”

Adams v. Bostick (In Re Bostick)

400 B.R. 348 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Connecticut · Feb 2, 2009

The UST overlooks the plain language of the statute, which clearly states that the debtor must have converted the case, not a third party (i.e., the conversion must be voluntary, not involuntary). … In re Brenes, 261 B.R. at 329, 334 . 13 Omissions as well as affirmative misstatements qualify as false statements for Section 727(a)(4)(A) purposes. Beaubouef v.

In re Cochran

555 B.R. 892 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Georgia · Sep 1, 2016

These definitions establish that a final, balloon payment is distinct and separate from the preceding “periodic payments.” … Some courts seem to suggest that adequate protection payments, even though regularly occurring, may not qualify as "periodic payments” under § 1325(a)(5)(B)(iii)(I).

Baroni v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In re Baroni)

558 B.R. 916 · United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. California · Sep 30, 2016

Even if Wells Fargo had not qualified as the holder of the note, the court reasoned, Wells Fargo had established that it possessed the note as trustee of a securitization trust and that Wells Fargo owned the Henderson note … First, it is well-established that a chapter 11 plan is itself a contract between a debtor and its creditors.

Miracle Restaurant Group LLC

United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Louisiana · May 13, 2025

The Court qualified Elliot as an expert in financial restructuring of quick-service restaurants and heard testimony from both Moore and Elliot. … Williams (In re Hilal), 534 F.3d 498 (5th Cir. 2008) (recognizing a limited qualified immunity to bankruptcy trustees), as well as the plain text of 11 U.S.C. § 524(e),8 the Fifth Circuit limited the exculpatory provision

Regions Bank v. Whisnant (In Re Whisnant)

411 B.R. 559 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Tennessee · Aug 25, 2009

The concealment or understating of assets or liabilities constitutes material misstatements, and documents “containing pertinent omissions may qualify as ‘materially false’ for purposes of a section 523(a)(2)(B) violation … Clearly, based upon the testimony of Mr. McMahan and the aforementioned documentation, the Plaintiff relied upon the financial statements and tax returns provided to it by the Defendant.

Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Stratton Oakmont, Inc.

234 B.R. 293 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · May 7, 1999

Clearly, if the underlying promise does not exist, then a transfer in reliance on that absent promise cannot exist either. … To qualify as a subsequent transferee, one must have dominion and control over the funds or property one receives.

Gerdes v. Gerdes (In Re Gerdes)

33 B.R. 860 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 23, 1983

The Debtor had achieved marked success in the aircraft business, and was duly licensed to operate certain aspects of the airport businesses for which the proposed buyer is not qualified. … The amounts to be paid via the wholly owned corporation were negotiated and established from the income and expense statement required by the state court for the acknowledged purpose of establishing the need and monetary

Shields v. Crel, Inc. (In re Dartco, Inc.)

203 B.R. 285 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Minnesota · Dec 9, 1996

Justice clearly requires a grant of leave to amend. … Even more on point, the third sentence clearly contemplates that post-confirmation proceedings involving a reorganized debtor may be brought in any other court, subject to the establishment of jurisdiction there and subject

In Re Liptak

304 B.R. 820 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 22, 2004

If a judgment from another state qualifies as valid and enforceable, other state courts have a constitutional obligation to recognize the final judgment from the foreign state, even if it originated from a law that is at … Instead, he is clearly solvent. He has no real need to bring voluminous litigation to one federal forum in hopes of a “global settlement.”

In Re Jazz Photo Corp.

312 B.R. 524 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 3, 2004

Nevertheless, the motion, discovery and hearings were, in this court’s view, clearly justified. … The single clearly “over-the-top” statement by Fuji’s counsel deserves a rebuke. See (j) of the Appendix.

Kmart Corp. v. Intercraft Co. (In Re Kmart Corp.)

310 B.R. 107 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · May 18, 2004

This amount does not include certain other payments that could potentially qualify as preferential transfers. … The party seeking to establish that the doctrine of res judicata applies, has the burden of proving all of its elements. Id. That party also carries the burden of establishing that no exception to res judicata exists.

In Re WorldCom, Inc.

358 B.R. 585 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Dec 14, 2006

Chiptoff maintains that even if the August Switch was authorized by his signing the Check, the November Switch was clearly unauthorized. … The Superior Court never issued a ruling that Chiptoff qualified as a private attorney general.

Mahoney v. Washington Mutual, Inc. (In Re Mahoney)

368 B.R. 579 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Texas · Apr 23, 2007

But that is clearly not the case.”). Bankruptcy does not erase debt; the discharge is only an injunction against attempts to collect the debt as a personal liability of the debtor. … analysis, reporting of a debt to a credit reporting agency — without any evidence of harassment, coercion, or some other linkage to show that the act is one likely to be effective as a debt collection device — fails to qualify

In Re Combustion Engineering, Inc.

295 B.R. 459 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Jun 23, 2003

Once the CE Settlement Trust was established, CE paid the claims of those who qualified and agreed to the MSA. These payments continued postpetition but a certain portion of each claim, the “stub” claim, remains unpaid. … Factors 4 and 5 are not clearly established on this record. However, remedial action may cure any defect.

Van Curen v. Great American Insurance (In Re Hat)

363 B.R. 123 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. California · Jan 31, 2007

You also must clearly set forth the percentage shares of each person on the acreage report. 7 C.F.R. § 457.8 , ¶ 10(a) (2003). … Julian Whaley, Ph.D. who was qualified as an expert in forensic plant pathology. Dr. Whaley’s opinion testimony was based entirely on a review of temperature records.

In Re Rigdon

133 B.R. 460 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Illinois · Nov 18, 1991

In most instances, the supporter has to contribute at least fifty percent of the individual’s income in order to qualify as a “dependent.” … The legislature clearly anticipated that child and parent were in the same class as "other person dependent upon the insured.”

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of St. Johnsbury Trucking Co. v. Bankers Trust Co. (In Re St. Johnsbury Trucking Co.)

184 B.R. 446 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Vermont · Jun 28, 1995

A fraud on the court, by contrast, occurs when it can be demonstrated, clearly and convincingly, that a party has sen-tiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability … One commentator notes that “courts have expanded the exception by exploiting the notorious ambiguity of the word ‘fraud’ to include many kinds of wrongdoing that do not qualify as civil fraud in the strict sense.”