Case law

MacGibbon v. MacGibbon (In Re MacGibbon)

383 B.R. 749 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Washington · Feb 29, 2008

However, as the custodial parent of the five minor children, she will clearly need to receive substantial child support, property and maintenance. Maintenance is a flexible tool. … As such, he is qualified to fly B-727 and A-300 airplanes. As a captain, it is estimated his average net salary in 1999, before voluntary retirement plan deductions, will be about $12,200 per month. Mr.

Redmond v. GMAC Insurance Management Corp. (In re Brooke Corp.)

539 B.R. 605 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Kansas · Sep 29, 2015

Brooke Corp established an agency relationship with GMAC in 2000. … None of these benefits from the payment of premiums to GMAC qualify as new value under § 547(c)(1).

Johnson v. Barber

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Utah · Mar 22, 2023

In this case, the Divorce Settlement and Divorce Decree clearly establish that the parties intended the Divorce Debts to be nondischargeable, domestic support obligations. … As established by the Divorce Settlement and the Divorce Decree, the parties clearly intended the Divorce Debts to be domestic support obligations.

Hermosilla v. Hermosilla (In Re Hermosilla)

450 B.R. 276 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · Jun 1, 2011

The Memorandum failed to even acknowledge the admissions as established facts, instead discussing them as unsupported allegations. … Fortunately, I qualified for MassHealth (also known as Medicaid), and continued to be qualified for free health care until February, 2011. All of this resulted in a substantial loss of income in 2010.

PMC MARKETING CORP

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 23, 2014

An administrative expense claimant bears the burden of establishing that its claim qualifies for priority status. In re Goody’s Family Clothing, Inc., 401 B.R. at 136 n.24 (internal quotations and citation omitted). … The bankruptcy court ultimately found that the relationship between PMC and PREPA was clearly one between a customer and a regulated utility and, given PREPA’s nature as a “traditional utility” provider with a monopoly

In re City of San Bernardino

566 B.R. 46 · United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. California · Mar 7, 2017

The jurisdiction in this case clearly exists: if the City is required to pay 100% on claims against the Indemnified Parties, the necessary dollars to do so will far exceed the City’s budget for paying claims and at the same … Having established the court has both jurisdiction and authority to issue a third party injunction, the City turns its argument to the imperative need for such relief in this case.

Lewis v. Delta Funding Corp. (In Re Lewis)

290 B.R. 541 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 2003

The note rate does not contradict the APR, and both rates are *549 clearly labeled. … However, whether Jones performed all of the tasks identified in the Broker Agreement or performed sufficient tasks to meet the guidelines established in the 1999 RESPA Policy is an unresolved issue of material fact.

In re Reg'l Evangelical Alliance of Churches, Inc.

592 B.R. 375 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Kansas · Nov 6, 2018

From December 28, 2015 to June 1, 2016, attempts were made to sell the Property to a religious organization, but no qualified buyers were located. … On the same day, Debtor also filed a motion to establish bid procedures for sale of the Property under § 363.

In Re 222 Liberty Associates

108 B.R. 971 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 4, 1990

Case law has established that there are many factors to consider in making a feasibility determination. … At the hearing on December 6, 1989, Goldome called and successfully qualified Reaves C. Lukens, Jr.

Buckeye Retirement Co. v. Hake (In Re Hake)

387 B.R. 490 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 21, 2008

Hake (“Debtor”) and Mary Ann Hake (collectively, “Debtors”) initially filed a chapter 11 case on March 25, 2004 1 because their debts exceeded the limit to qualify for a chapter 13 filing. … “[I]t is well settled that exceptions to discharge should be limited to those clearly expressed in the Code, with exceptions not expressly included being excluded by implication.” Patterson Dental Co. v.

In Re Lair

235 B.R. 1 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Louisiana · Jun 21, 1999

Clearly, trustees would revolt at the prospect of being the middle persons in this scrum. … Clearly the focus of the Eleventh Circuit is on the word “retention.”

Bernal v. DK8 LLC (In re HBT JV, LLC )

571 B.R. 729 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas · Apr 19, 2017

In any event, the evidence established that Bernal did not sign either of the draft letters. … Bernal clearly has a compelling and admirable story and a sincere desire to own the Dealership.

Barrett v. Storm

United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia · Mar 27, 2024

Kan. 1982) (“Here there clearly was no express trust agreement. … Ill. 1982) (“This court interprets the qualifying terms ‘fiduciary duty’ to require proof of a technical trust between the agent and principal, before a debt due and owing between them can be found non-dischargeable.”)

Lowery v. Iftiu

United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 30, 2019

In addition, [the court] will look to the plain and ordinary meaning of the language used in the contract unless another meaning is clearly apparent from the contents of the agreement. … Defendant-Debtor argues that Plaintiffs cannot establish that his misrepresentations caused the damages Plaintiffs allege.

In re Ibis Corp.

272 B.R. 877 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · Oct 5, 2001

Clearly, the creditors to whom those distributions were mailed have done everything required to be eligible for participation in distributions under the plan. … Once a *886 creditor has done everything the plan requires to qualify to receive a distribution, there is no requirement imposed under § 1143 to take any further action. .

In Re Worldcom, Inc.

343 B.R. 412 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · May 4, 2006

failed to inform or adequately disclose that the 50% savings was from the other carriers non-discounted phone services, that the rates did not apply to all calls, and that there was a minimum time requirement for calls to qualify … However, in Martin , when the class certification orders were issued, they were "clearly final and appealable interlocutory orders.” Id.

In Re JMK Construction Group, Ltd.

441 B.R. 222 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Dec 9, 2010

The bankruptcy court determined that Copeland & *236 Bieger was not qualified to represent two of the debtor entities under section 327 of the Bankruptcy Code. … Kopf clearly disposed of property “other than in the ordinary course of business,” something that cannot be done without court approval. 5 See 11 U.S.C. § 363 (b)(1).

In re Paxton

596 B.R. 686 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California · Jan 29, 2019

The record clearly indicates that the Declaratory Relief Action was based on Mr. Paxton's prepetition breach of contract. Mr. … In re Dyer , 322 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2003) ("[T]here can be no doubt that the automatic stay qualifies as a specific and definite court order"); See also In re Schwartz-Tallard , 803 F.3d 1095 , 1098 (9th Cir. 2015).

In Re Taylor & Associates, L.P.

249 B.R. 448 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Tennessee · Apr 3, 1998

That court has clearly instructed this court and the petitioners regarding the proof that will be required to establish Taylor & Associates, L.P. as a limited or general partnership. … The letter clearly establishes that D. Taylor sent a cashier’s check, the remitter of the check being J. Taylor, to L. Seaton which represented "the entire account balance of Laurel's investment through Joe.”

In re Scimeca Foundation, Inc.

497 B.R. 753 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 16, 2013

Essentially, this requires a trustee to establish sound business reasons for the terms of the proposed sale.... … DeFeo, its sole member clearly knew of the deadline — he filed his own proofs of claim on March 14th. .